EPTpigs are intelligent. how do you differentiate between a pig and a dog? certainly the difference is less than comparing eating dog meat to cannabalism.
Ethics of dog meat? - Page 33
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
anycolourfloyd
Australia524 Posts
pigs are intelligent. how do you differentiate between a pig and a dog? certainly the difference is less than comparing eating dog meat to cannabalism. | ||
|
SCST
Mexico1609 Posts
On April 18 2012 15:33 anycolourfloyd wrote: alright cause my edit kinda got posted over i might as well try again.. pigs are intelligent. how do you differentiate between a pig and a dog? certainly the difference is less than comparing eating dog meat to cannabalism. From my larger post a few back: Note on pigs: Though also bred for consumption, pigs are very sociable animals and almost on par with dogs in regards to intelligence. I am also strongly against the slaughter of pigs. I don't like the idea of eating any animals, and I wish that in the future we can evolve beyond this kind of thing. We shouldn't be eating pigs, either imo. They are the only animal commonly consumed by Westerners' that is a social animal. However, their consumption is in decline due to increasing awareness! It is absolutely justifiable to compare cannibalism to eating dogs, because minus the taboo associated with cannablism, the common denominators between humans and dogs are: meat and social/intelligence. Did you know that the average intelligence of a dog is on par with a human toddler, not to mention that the dog has even more mature social habits? What's the difference between consuming a toddler and a dog in this case? Gross to talk about, but logic has no feelings. On the other hand, chickens/fish etc have zero sociability and never equal human intelligence at almost any stage. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5298 Posts
| ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On April 18 2012 15:44 SCST wrote: From my larger post a few back: We shouldn't be eating pigs, either imo. They are the only animal commonly consumed by Westerners' that is a social animal. However, their consumption is in decline due to increasing awareness! It is absolutely justifiable to compare cannibalism to eating dogs, because minus the taboo associated with cannablism, the common denominators between humans and dogs are: meat and social/intelligence. Did you know that the average intelligence of a dog is on par with a human toddler, not to mention that the dog has even more mature social habits? What's the difference between consuming a toddler and a dog in this case? Gross to talk about, but logic has no feelings. On the other hand, chickens/fish etc have zero sociability and never equal human intelligence at almost any stage. One is a human and one is a dog. There you have a difference. Also if dogs are not much different than a toddler someone should rise up and end the slavery of dogs. Or do you propose we start selling toddlers as well? | ||
|
anycolourfloyd
Australia524 Posts
| ||
|
SCST
Mexico1609 Posts
On April 18 2012 15:49 xM(Z wrote: can the pigs be trained to sniff out drugs, find injured perosons between rubbles, pull sleds at poles, fetch birds and so on?. just asking. Yes, pigs can do all of those things (minus the cold weather sled pulling). They are highly intelligent animals, on par with that of a dog. They can be trained as easily as dogs, and sometimes more so. They can sniff out drugs as good as dogs. Research shows that dogs, horses, dolphins, pigs, whales and apes are the most intelligent creatures on the planet, bar humans. This catagory of animal (based on intelligence and sociability) is in a completely different catagory than fish/chickens/cows. | ||
|
gruff
Sweden2276 Posts
On April 18 2012 15:49 xM(Z wrote: can the pigs be trained to sniff out drugs, find injured perosons between rubbles, pull sleds at poles, fetch birds and so on?. just asking. They can be taught to do stuff. They have been used to find truffles, and they can do varies tricks that dogs can do and so on. Though I oppose the idea that intelligence is only about doing things us humans wants it to do. I often feel my cat are more clever making me do things it wants rather than the other way around.  | ||
|
SCST
Mexico1609 Posts
On April 18 2012 15:52 nam nam wrote: One is a human and one is a dog. There you have a difference. Also if dogs are not much different than a toddler someone should rise up and end the slavery of dogs. Or do you propose we start selling toddlers as well? Your post is confusing because you are not actually arguing anything. An argument requires logic, rationality and evidence. "One is human and one is a dog" does not in any way counter my statement as I am not arguing that humans and dogs are exactly the same? I'm stating that they both have meat and both exhibit similar social behavior. On your toddlers piece . . . . . . . um, since when are dogs slaves? Do you know the definition of slavery? Wait, why would I want to sell toddlers? My God I don't even know how to respond to this . . . . . . . . maybe you should consume more vegetables before posting? | ||
|
MutantGenepool
Australia115 Posts
If you're not hungry, eating dog is bad. If you are starving, eating dog is good, just don't eat the liver. That's always bad. I'd rather eat horse and so would the dog. After you've eaten dog. What do you do with the scraps? Give it to the next door neighbours dog. | ||
|
Baituri
Netherlands1501 Posts
| ||
|
Waterflow
Sweden1550 Posts
On April 18 2012 11:26 meatbox wrote: Looks delicious, and I don't think pigs are skinned and cooked alive like cats and dogs are... Who the f#ck cooks cats and dogs alive? Let me know who they are and i'll do the same to them. Nothing angers me more than animal cruelty. | ||
|
furymonkey
New Zealand1587 Posts
On April 18 2012 15:58 SCST wrote: Your post is confusing because you are not actually arguing anything. An argument requires logic, rationality and evidence. "One is human and one is a dog" does not in any way counter my statement with logic, rationality or evidence. . . On your toddlers piece . . . . . . . um, since when are dogs slaves? Do you know the definition of slavery? Wait, why would I want to sell toddlers? My God I don't even know how to respond to this . . . . . . . . maybe you should consume more vegetables before posting? IMO you're trying to find reason that doesn't exist. When human and animal are hungry and wanting to eat something, the last thing they have on their mind whether their meal is a social / intelligent being. Accessibility and availability is one of the reason for human, all these animals we eat can be breed easily without needing to feed meat to grow meat. Some of these animal weren't as common back in the days, their increase isn't due to their decrease in social / intelligences. | ||
|
ZergOwaR
Norway280 Posts
On April 18 2012 15:44 SCST wrote: From my larger post a few back: We shouldn't be eating pigs, either imo. They are the only animal commonly consumed by Westerners' that is a social animal. However, their consumption is in decline due to increasing awareness! It is absolutely justifiable to compare cannibalism to eating dogs, because minus the taboo associated with cannablism, the common denominators between humans and dogs are: meat and social/intelligence. Did you know that the average intelligence of a dog is on par with a human toddler, not to mention that the dog has even more mature social habits? What's the difference between consuming a toddler and a dog in this case? Gross to talk about, but logic has no feelings. On the other hand, chickens/fish etc have zero sociability and never equal human intelligence at almost any stage. using logic in an effort to prove something while confining the arguments to a very narrow part of the entire picture can be used in many interesting ways as in another thread/blog here on TL.. alot of bronze league players are so inept at learning that when they are told whats coming.. told how to defeat it, by using one simple action... they fail... and dogs tend to understand that you still have the ball after you have faked a throw say 5-10 times.. and with all the BM/hate coming from the ladder (also alot from bronze) in many cases dogs are kinder and more social) So by your logic the lower part of bronze league should be served on the grill in china.. though that statement is utter nonsense for anyone but hanibal  logic have no feelings.. so lets put this to a test: You're stranded on a mountain in alaska... you have fire.. water.. and all is good.. except for the fact that you're starving and anything edible is to deep under the snow or too far away.. to have any hope to survive until rescued you need something to eat.. and with you is a toddler.. and a dog... who do you eat first to survive? (there are no other options.. either you eat one.. or die) | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
I don't think anything about farmed animals are humanely, either you eat them or you think they are treated terrible and go vegan. | ||
|
SCST
Mexico1609 Posts
On April 18 2012 16:47 ZergOwaR wrote: using logic in an effort to prove something while confining the arguments to a very narrow part of the entire picture can be used in many interesting ways as in another thread/blog here on TL.. alot of bronze league players are so inept at learning that when they are told whats coming.. told how to defeat it, by using one simple action... they fail... and dogs tend to understand that you still have the ball after you have faked a throw say 5-10 times.. and with all the BM/hate coming from the ladder (also alot from bronze) in many cases dogs are kinder and more social) So by your logic the lower part of bronze league should be served on the grill in china.. though that statement is utter nonsense for anyone but hanibal logic have no feelings.. so lets put this to a test: You're stranded on a mountain in alaska... you have fire.. water.. and all is good.. except for the fact that you're starving and anything edible is to deep under the snow or too far away.. to have any hope to survive until rescued you need something to eat.. and with you is a toddler.. and a dog... who do you eat first to survive? (there are no other options.. either you eat one.. or die) Good points but you're not addressing my argument. I'm arguing that it is immoral to eat dog based on the following logic: 1. Meat is all the same regardless of the animal 2. Humans are social and intelligent animals that exhibit joy, sadness, loyalty, love 3. Dogs are social and intelligent animals that exhibit joy, sadnness, loyalty, love 4. Humans do not eat humans because of these traits 5. Humans should not eat dogs because of these traits 6. Chickens and fish and livestock do not exhibit any of these traits therefore they are consumable On your point regarding cannabilism, I never argue'd otherwise. I'll quote from my earlier post: Note on cannibalism vs. eating dogs: It is widely known in the research community that during the many starvation episodes throughout history there has been a strict pecking order in regards to animal consumption. Dogs are always, without fail, the last animal to be eaten by starving populations before humans begin eating humans. Even in Asia. Chew on that for a while. The whole point of my statement was to illustrate that most human beings (but not on Team Liquid for some reason) consider dogs to be second to human beings in regards to value of life. I was implying that being so eager to eat meat regardless of moral perspective/judgement is a dangerous path, one step away from cannabilism. You just reinforced that point. | ||
|
HellionDrop
281 Posts
On April 18 2012 17:00 SCST wrote: 1. Meat is all the same regardless of the animal 2. Humans are social and intelligent animals that exhibit joy, sadness, loyalty, love 3. Dogs are social and intelligent animals that exhibit joy, sadnness, loyalty, love 4. Humans do not eat humans because of these traits 5. Humans should not eat dogs because of these traits 6. Chickens and fish and livestock do not exhibit any of these traits therefore they are consumable i would argue with 2 and disagree with 4 and 5. humans do not eat humans because they're not part of our food source, in fact this is true for most species. also cannibalism happened in human history, but now we have laws to hold basic moral ground. | ||
|
nayumi
Australia6499 Posts
Though i see nothing wrong with it tho ... Humans should not eat their own kind, but for the rest, go ahead | ||
|
Hollow
Canada2180 Posts
On April 18 2012 16:02 MutantGenepool wrote: Ethics... If you're not hungry, eating dog is bad. If you are starving, eating dog is good, just don't eat the liver. That's always bad. I'd rather eat horse and so would the dog. After you've eaten dog. What do you do with the scraps? Give it to the next door neighbours dog. That's a nice George Bernard Shaw quote you have there. Here's one I like myself: "Animals are my friends... and I don't eat my friends." - George Bernard Shaw I've never eaten animals that I've had as friends, personally, and that's where I draw the line. Oh, and he also said: "My situation is a solemn one. Life is offered to me on condition of eating beefsteaks. But death is better than cannibalism. " | ||
|
SCST
Mexico1609 Posts
On April 18 2012 17:15 HellionDrop wrote: i don't see the argument of how being socilabe remotely related to being a source of food. you can certainly breed dogs just for food consumption the way you breed other livesotcks. the laws prohibit people to kill/eat another person because we need to keep order in society. its really that simple. i would argue with 2 and disagree with 4 and 5. humans do not eat humans because they're not part of our food source, in fact this is true for most species. also cannibalism happened in human history, but now we have laws to hold basic moral ground. Good point, finally a valid argument against mine. I would strongly argue that 4 supercedes law and order greatly. Cannabilism has happened frequently en mass even in modern history . . . China, North Korea, Balkans, etc. We're talking relatively modern civilizations here, not tribal or ritual. Even during these massive famines when the only option was cannabilism, many people chose to die of starvation rather than eat their own. And in these cases when everyone was starving, laws against cannabilism meant nothing. These people chose not to eat their fellow humans on moral grounds alone. And the basis for that moral ground is without question the horror of killing a being that exhibits or seemingly exhibits feelings. If you feel comfortable killing and eating a creature that exhibits human-like traits (this is limited to only a few species on Earth) when other food sources are available, then it stands to reason that you are on the path to cannibilism and/or worse. | ||
|
Waterflow
Sweden1550 Posts
On April 18 2012 16:48 Caphe wrote: I see alot mention inhumanely killing of animal. So How is pigs get slaughtered? I don't think anything about farmed animals are humanely, either you eat them or you think they are treated terrible and go vegan. You can still strive for reaching the most humanely way of killing animals as possible. Just because you eat meat doesn't mean you should kill the animals in the worst way possible. | ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://www.1800-pet-shed.com/files/2012/03/What-You-Need-To-Know-About-Pet-Pigs.jpg)
