EPTlogically it's no different than other animals.
Ethics of dog meat? - Page 29
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Kinetik_Inferno
United States1431 Posts
logically it's no different than other animals. | ||
|
Mirror0423
United States175 Posts
On the other hand a lot of european based culture was historically more herding based, there for dogs were really not on the menu. Dogs help you keep your keeps in line. That's really all there is. Dogs were more "important" in western culture, while cows were more imporatnt in the eastern culture. If you look at almost any historical text, eating beef in Korean was reserved for very very special occasion. Slaughtering of a cow was a village event, and everyone was given a piece as it was a "celebration" of something huge when cows were beat eaten by anyone other than high royalty. This relates to how westerners see eating dogs as "inhumane" since if you eat dogs you basically put your whole family at risk, while in asian if you eat cows, you put your whole family at risk. Honestly, ask any Korean who is 30+ years old, and ask 'em how often did they eat beef when they were younger. I'm 22, and i remember just getting a burger was a special occasion thing, even after Korea was very "westernized". Now days, Korea's westernized enough that beef is a every day thing, but 10 years back, i promise you, eating steak at home was almost unimaginable, a college student eating streak was impossibly rare, and anytime people ate beef it was a big "Social event". | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On April 16 2012 11:48 Kinetik_Inferno wrote: Some part of me feels like it's intrinsically wrong to eat something so cute but... logically it's no different than other animals. Would you eat rabit? | ||
|
Abort Retry Fail
2636 Posts
What if he doesnt find rabbits cute? | ||
|
CyDe
United States1010 Posts
| ||
|
missefficiency
Germany105 Posts
During WW2, his father and two others were on their way home through Russia after they deserted from the german army and a dog was following them. They shared food with him while they had some, but after three days without any food, they killed and ate the dog. It saved their lives, but according to the son, the father could never really get over killing the dog and told the story a hundred times. It always got me thinking, would I do the same? I guess in that situation I would =/ But I don't like the thought of it, and even though I eat meat from time to time, I try to eat reasonable amounts (which is kinda hard for my dad is Denny Crane when it comes to meat). | ||
|
frontliner2
Netherlands844 Posts
Don't have that internal struggle 'hey but I eat farm animals too, how hypocrite of me' ^^ I don't like to see dogs being raised as food, but I don't like it for pigs, cows, chickens, etc... Nice! | ||
|
froggynoddy
United Kingdom452 Posts
On April 16 2012 08:39 sc4k wrote: 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. You can't say that the fact of being human is a factor, not in of itself. You can argue that cannibalism leads to certain illness (cannot remember the term) and therefore is bad, but being human in of itself is not a good reason to distinguish moral worth. Also, you forget that I'm veggie, so I don't have to 'go live in China' (nice). This is not a political standpoint its a moral argument. And no, the best arguments are based on reason, not emotion, people rely on emotional reactions because they are too lazy/uneducated/scared of realising that their actions are not logically sound. All the worst 'political standpoints' are those based on emotions. But if you aren't willing to accept that this is where our debate ends. EDIT: note that I was critical of people who rely on emotional reactions, not those who feel them (we all do). | ||
|
froggynoddy
United Kingdom452 Posts
On April 16 2012 11:01 sc2superfan101 wrote: or, you know, it might be that i like dogs as animals and i don't like pigs or cows as animals except for when i'm eating them... i think the term "irrational" is one of the most overused and least understood terms on the internet. A: I like dogs, they are super cool. + B: Eating super cool stuff is not cool in my opinion. = C: I won't eat dogs. and then: A: i eat pigs because they are tasty and not super cool. + B: some people find dogs to be tasty and not super cool. + C: pigs and dogs are both animals, nothing really inherently special about either = D: i won't eat dogs, but have no moral problem with other people doing so. D and C are both rational, and even better than that, they are not mutually exclusive. so, as we can see, there is absolutely nothing irrational about it. They are not rational. You are using syllogisms which are logical tools but your premises (I think X is super cool/not super cool) are not rational ones but emotional. | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On April 16 2012 19:14 Abort Retry Fail wrote: What if he doesnt find rabbits cute? I don't know, hence the question. | ||
|
dmfg
United Kingdom591 Posts
On April 16 2012 22:19 froggynoddy wrote: They are not rational. You are using syllogisms which are logical tools but your premises (I think X is super cool/not super cool) are not rational ones but emotional. Seems rational enough to be - he's pretty much stating his axioms and forming a reasonably argued conclusion based on them. His axioms are subjective rather than objective, but that doesn't immediately make them "not rational". | ||
|
froggynoddy
United Kingdom452 Posts
How old are you and what do you study? My guess is 20 and philosophy. I don't think my opposition to eating dogs is irrational, it's just based on the point I presented. I don't want anyone else to eat dogs because of that point...problem? Attack his argument, not him. He could be 12 studying drawing that doesn't make his argument better or worse. | ||
|
froggynoddy
United Kingdom452 Posts
On April 16 2012 22:25 dmfg wrote: Seems rational enough to be - he's pretty much stating his axioms and forming a reasonably argued conclusion based on them. His axioms are subjective rather than objective, but that doesn't immediately make them "not rational". I'm using the term rational as 'that which is based on reason'. As I state in my post, his structure is logical, but his premises are not based on reason. Therefore the argument is not rational. Just by going A+B=C does not make an argument rationally sound, both the premises and the operation have to be. Though at least he is structutring his argument which is more than what most people do. Subjective/objective does not come into what I am saying. Please explain what you mean. | ||
|
brachester
Australia1786 Posts
EDIT: but I find it funny that this thread even exist, why is this specific toward dogs but not chicken, pig or any other animals? | ||
|
DreamChaser
1649 Posts
On April 16 2012 11:41 Supamang wrote: I think its all pretty contextual. I think it'd be weird if someone in America, a place where dogs are viewed strictly as pets/companions, killed and ate a dog (not out of desperation). I might question his character if he was a born and bred American, and I might be a little disgusted simply because he must have been instilled with the same respect most Americans give dogs and still decided to kill and eat a dog anyway. If someone from Korea ate a dog, I might not agree with it but I wouldn't question it. Simple as that for me. Basically the answer, dogs to me have been domesticated and i only view them as companions. But i won't be in Korea and start a fight with someone because their culture allows it. | ||
BluemoonSC
SoCal8907 Posts
| ||
|
DreamChaser
1649 Posts
On April 16 2012 11:41 Supamang wrote: I think its all pretty contextual. I think it'd be weird if someone in America, a place where dogs are viewed strictly as pets/companions, killed and ate a dog (not out of desperation). I might question his character if he was a born and bred American, and I might be a little disgusted simply because he must have been instilled with the same respect most Americans give dogs and still decided to kill and eat a dog anyway. If someone from Korea ate a dog, I might not agree with it but I wouldn't question it. Simple as that for me. Basically the answer, dogs to me have been domesticated and i only view them as companions. But i won't be in Korea and start a fight with someone because their culture allows it. On April 16 2012 22:36 brachester wrote: I have a dog but I also eat dog (true story). Don't ask me how my brain works I guess you have like a farmer mentality? They raise chickens/cows and they eat them xD | ||
|
pyrogenetix
United Arab Emirates5090 Posts
Just because we keep dogs as pets doesn't mean shit. People need to travel more and realize that the world is bigger than their little comfort zone. | ||
|
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
On April 16 2012 22:19 froggynoddy wrote: They are not rational. You are using syllogisms which are logical tools but your premises (I think X is super cool/not super cool) are not rational ones but emotional. You can't really have an objective (2+2=4) premise in this manner. His logic make perfect sense as it's a matter of taste | ||
|
JimSocks
United States968 Posts
| ||
| ||
