On April 15 2012 22:28 meatbox wrote: It doesn't matter what you eat, but in terms of ANIMAL CRUELTY, I'll have you know cats and dogs are SKINNED then COOKER ALIVE!!!
The only thing we should be eating is seafood along with greens, but we've overpopulated the world haven't we? Need to allow murders, introduced the death penalty for petty crimes and have a one child policy!
why seafood?
@topic, i don't really mind it tbh... meat is meat
With seafood, fish do not possess a central nervous system so they do not feel the pain of death like mammals would, plus it is the richest source of omega 3, essential for brain function and development.
Joseph Garner of Purdue University and his colleagues in Norway report that the way goldfish respond to pain shows that these animals do experience pain consciously, rather than simply reacting with a reflex—such as when a person recoils after stepping on a tack (jerking away before he or she is aware of the sensation). In the study, the biologists found that goldfish injected with saline solution and exposed to a painful level of heat in a test tank “hovered” in one spot when placed back in their home tank. Garner labels that “fearful, avoidance behavior.” Such behavior, he says, is cognitive—not reflexive. Other fish, after receiving a morphine injection that blocked the impact of pain, showed no such fearful behavior.
"So what can you do next time you catch fish? Take some ice and icy water with you, and plunge the freshly-caught fish into the icy water. As the fish cools, its metabolism will slow down, and it will go (painlessly, we think) into hibernation and then anaesthesia. Then place it gently on the ice, but out of the water. It will suffocate to death, but while being anaethetised."
On April 16 2012 06:28 Brettatron wrote: The amount of cognitive dissonance in this thread is lulzy. I can almost see the struggle for some people in their posts. I don't eat any meat. But if I did I would eat dog. Farmed or wild. Not domestic. Just like I wouldn't eat someones pot-belly pig if it were domestic.
i dont see how a vegetarian can couch comment rofl.
On April 15 2012 10:02 logikly wrote: WHen i was In Korea they had a dog farm behind my barracks and we could hear the dogs yelp because they clubbed them to death. I have no problem what other countries do but at least do it humanely.
I wouldn't say 'humane' is the right term to refer to killing, because it's not the way you'd kill a human (unless you are referring to humane executions of prisoners on death row, in which case humane would mean you would be euthanising animals, not slitting their throats with knives).
I was quite shocked when I saw this video recently, similar to what you were saying regarding clubbing:
Well this explains exactly what I was hearing perhaps it was a fox farm and not a dog. I really dont know that was back in 2006 and 2007 for me. It was so loud that people could it through my mic while i was chatting on ventrilo. My Unit had several complains to the command and they finally changed our barracks and made my old barracks a Katusa(Korean Augmentee to United States Army)
We used to have a dog farm right outside the base along the perimeter run route (in Korea)... I would gag nonstop until I finally got pass or upwind of it. Granted, any animal farm would have probably made me gag.
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?
For me, intelligence is one of the things that disqualifies a creature from moral edibility. The other thing is a) that it is a human itself, and b) that it is from a species that has throughout our history been helpful and a good companion to us.
So I would consider dogs off the menu because they help us and they are our companions, and horses off the menu because we have used them in war and farming so much. I know it's a bullshit emotional argument but fuck it, there are more people in my country who think the way I do than the way you do, so either go off and live in China or deal with the fact that the majority of us hate the idea of eating man's best friend. When you boil a lot of political arguments down to their basis, it comes down to a gut reaction that may well be based on emotion. Even the most complicated political standpoint can be boiled down to: do you value personal freedom over societal safety etc.
sc4k is right on. We have bred certain animals to be our companions and to help us do work. Even if it is not immoral to kill them or abuse them in an absolute sense, it is morally damaging and morally numbing (in an Aristotelian sense) to kill or abuse animals which society collectively has determined are our helpers and companions. Ultimately, I think that is why it is important to ban eating dogs and horses and cats in America --> to allow it would be morally corrupting. In cultures in which this is not the case, then I think it is fine to allow dogs/cats to be eaten.
I'd never eat it myself but that doesn't mean I have the right to tell another culture that they can't.
Animals are looked upon differently in various cultures and times and I'd like people to not judge eachother too much for it. What's right today could be wrong tomorrow.
On April 16 2012 08:51 KJSharp wrote: sc4k is right on. We have bred certain animals to be our companions and to help us do work. Even if it is not immoral to kill them or abuse them in an absolute sense, it is morally damaging and morally numbing (in an Aristotelian sense) to kill or abuse animals which society collectively has determined are our helpers and companions. Ultimately, I think that is why it is important to ban eating dogs and horses and cats in America --> to allow it would be morally corrupting. In cultures in which this is not the case, then I think it is fine to allow dogs/cats to be eaten.
You're assuming that everyone in America feels that way. If they don't, who are you to tell them they can't?
I don't believe that the government should be making moral choices for its people. If it's dangerous or bothersome to others, then fine, but otherwise let people be.
We don't eat people because homicide is illegal (for the safety of society)
We eat dogs becaus dogs are not human, they are animals
We eat plants because plants are not human, they are plants
Both plants and dogs are living things--which means they are alive and self aware. This is okay because they are not human--who are also living things who are alive and self aware.
I don't eat based on intellect because I don't eat babies.
I don't eat based on usefulness because I don't eat Elderly.
I don't eat based on cuteness because I don't eat ugly people.
I don't eat based on nostalgia because I don't eat strangers.
I think the definition of 'ethics' is too loose here. From a legislation point of view, it is simply not feasible in most developed countries, i.e., the western countries, to establish an 'ethical' set of rules regarding dog farming, slaughtering, disposal, safety testing and consumption. Therefore if you are in a country where there is no law to safeguard a 'humane' way of treating dog meat consumption then it is not 'ethical' to consume dog meant.
On April 16 2012 09:08 lorkac wrote: We don't eat people because homicide is illegal (for the safety of society)
We eat dogs becaus dogs are not human, they are animals
We eat plants because plants are not human, they are plants
Both plants and dogs are living things--which means they are alive and self aware. This is okay because they are not human--who are also living things who are alive and self aware.
I don't eat based on intellect because I don't eat babies.
I don't eat based on usefulness because I don't eat Elderly.
I don't eat based on cuteness because I don't eat ugly people.
I don't eat based on nostalgia because I don't eat strangers.
I eat because they not human.
plants aren't self-aware. they don't have a nervous system or a brain as far as i'm aware.
On April 16 2012 08:52 Cereb wrote: I'd never eat it myself but that doesn't mean I have the right to tell another culture that they can't.
Animals are looked upon differently in various cultures and times and I'd like people to not judge eachother too much for it. What's right today could be wrong tomorrow.
ethics isnt always culturally subjective. it leads to circular reasoning (if cultural subjectivism is right, then if i say cultural subjectivism is wrong according to my beliefs, then i'm right) and pretty bad consequences (ie. the nazis acted morally, all forms of murder are right, killing off the disabled is also moral).
I dont eat any meat (or fish if that even has to be stated) and I don't see why it would be any different for dogs, one still has to kill an animal to get the meat.
On April 16 2012 09:08 lorkac wrote: We don't eat people because homicide is illegal (for the safety of society)
We eat dogs becaus dogs are not human, they are animals
We eat plants because plants are not human, they are plants
Both plants and dogs are living things--which means they are alive and self aware. This is okay because they are not human--who are also living things who are alive and self aware.
I don't eat based on intellect because I don't eat babies.
I don't eat based on usefulness because I don't eat Elderly.
I don't eat based on cuteness because I don't eat ugly people.
I don't eat based on nostalgia because I don't eat strangers.
I eat because they not human.
plants aren't self-aware. they don't have a nervous system or a brain as far as i'm aware.
Studies have shown that plants can sense an attack, if you were to cut a stem from a plant, before the blade makes contact with the stem, activity was measured. :o
On April 16 2012 09:08 lorkac wrote: We don't eat people because homicide is illegal (for the safety of society)
We eat dogs becaus dogs are not human, they are animals
We eat plants because plants are not human, they are plants
Both plants and dogs are living things--which means they are alive and self aware. This is okay because they are not human--who are also living things who are alive and self aware.
I don't eat based on intellect because I don't eat babies.
I don't eat based on usefulness because I don't eat Elderly.
I don't eat based on cuteness because I don't eat ugly people.
I don't eat based on nostalgia because I don't eat strangers.
I eat because they not human.
plants aren't self-aware. they don't have a nervous system or a brain as far as i'm aware.
Studies have shown that plants can sense an attack, if you were to cut a stem from a plant, before the blade makes contact with the stem, activity was measured. :o
On April 16 2012 08:51 KJSharp wrote: sc4k is right on. We have bred certain animals to be our companions and to help us do work. Even if it is not immoral to kill them or abuse them in an absolute sense, it is morally damaging and morally numbing (in an Aristotelian sense) to kill or abuse animals which society collectively has determined are our helpers and companions. Ultimately, I think that is why it is important to ban eating dogs and horses and cats in America --> to allow it would be morally corrupting. In cultures in which this is not the case, then I think it is fine to allow dogs/cats to be eaten.
You're assuming that everyone in America feels that way. If they don't, who are you to tell them they can't?
Oh you think having penetrative sex with an 11 year old is a bad thing? Well there are people in America who think it's good, who are you to tell them they can't have it?
On April 16 2012 08:51 KJSharp wrote: sc4k is right on. We have bred certain animals to be our companions and to help us do work. Even if it is not immoral to kill them or abuse them in an absolute sense, it is morally damaging and morally numbing (in an Aristotelian sense) to kill or abuse animals which society collectively has determined are our helpers and companions. Ultimately, I think that is why it is important to ban eating dogs and horses and cats in America --> to allow it would be morally corrupting. In cultures in which this is not the case, then I think it is fine to allow dogs/cats to be eaten.
You're assuming that everyone in America feels that way. If they don't, who are you to tell them they can't?
Oh you think having penetrative sex with an 11 year old is a bad thing? Well there are people in America who think it's good, who are you to tell them they can't have it?
You see sex with minors is human to human level. Eating dogs/cats is a human to animal level. Because they are not human they can't be judged on the same level.
EPT
