|
On April 16 2012 11:04 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 11:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 16 2012 10:55 Jay Chou wrote:On April 16 2012 10:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i wouldn't eat dog, but i wouldn't outlaw the eating of it either...
idk, something about a dog just makes it more important to me than a pig or a cow. That 'something' is irrational cognitive dissonance. 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. A: There is nothing wrong with eating dogs + B: I have a problem with eating dogs = C: Irrational Cognitive Dissonance
"cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment"
from wikipedia
i have absolutely no discomfort caused by holding the "belief" that i won't eat dogs. you, like the other poster, have misapplied the term to mean something that it does not. furthermore, the irrational part doesn't belong there either, as even the A and B points of your strawman argument were not themselves mutually exclusive:
just because one has a personal problem with doing something does not mean that they must necessarily find that thing to be immoral. i have a personal problem with watching over-the-top kids shows. there is nothing wrong with over-the-top kids shows, in a moral sense, but i still have a problem watching them, because i don't like them.
there is nothing morally wrong, in my opinion, with the simple fact of consuming dog meat. however, i would not enjoy consuming dog meat, therefore i will not consume it. just as i won't buy a car that is bright green. there is nothing wrong with buying cars that are bright green, but i don't like the color. personal preferences are not truly irrational at all.
|
On April 18 2012 23:51 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 15:58 SCST wrote:On April 18 2012 15:52 nam nam wrote:On April 18 2012 15:44 SCST wrote: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. 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? Killing a toddler is homicide and a society should not support the killing of its own--it ruins the point of having a society as opposed to having warring tribes. If you live in a world where at some point your neighbor is legally allowed to kill you--you'd leave that society. Its not a question about eating humans vs eating non-humans, its a question of legal murder or illegal murder.Dogs aren't human--so killing them isn't homicide. Killing them is no different than killing any other animal.
This is what matters. The ethics behind it is that it's wrong to kill an equal and it's not wrong to kill an inferior.
|
People become de-sensitized from animals that end up on their plate. Usually ppl don't think what is involved when a piece of meat/poultry shows up on their plate
I study this at University, and it is disgusting.
How would you like it , if I starved you, made you live in your own shit, then after X amount of days I electricute you so you fall unconcious , then a bolt is punched through your skull.
Then I started to take note of what was about the meat-chicken that tasted so good - I discovered that it was more about what was ADDED to meat/poultry that made it taste 'good' (the sauces , the pepers, the way it was cooked). The meat/chicken itself tasted pretty bland and displeasing to me on its own. SO, why even eat it ?
I personally have stopped eating meat and chicken altogether , I refuse to contribute to such a barbaric cruel illogical act.
IMHO, Anyone who eats meat should be informed properly, rather than sheepishly just accept what is put in front of them.
EDIT: I love how the in the MATRIX the tables are turned and HUMANS are HARVESTED! xD
|
On April 19 2012 11:24 Parcelleus wrote:
People become de-sensitized from animals that end up on their plate. Usually ppl don't think what is involved when a piece of meat/poultry shows up on their plate
I study this at University, and it is disgusting.
How would you like it , if I starved you, made you live in your own shit, then after X amount of days I electricute you so you fall unconcious , then a bolt is punched through your skull.
Then I started to take note of what was about the meat-chicken that tasted so good - I discovered that it was more about what was ADDED to meat/poultry that made it taste 'good' (the sauces , the pepers, the way it was cooked). The meat/chicken itself tasted pretty bland and displeasing to me on its own. SO, why even eat it ?
I personally have stopped eating meat and chicken altogether , I refuse to contribute to such a barbaric cruel illogical act.
IMHO, Anyone who eats meat should be informed properly, rather than sheepishly just accept what is put in front of them.
EDIT: I love how the in the MATRIX the tables are turned and HUMANS are HARVESTED! xD
I've killed my own animals for food.
I usually prefer meats with no spices--just seared on a fire.
Saying that--I agree with you completely that most people who eat meat are not honest with themselves and if they actually took the time to realize what they are doing that they wouldn't eat meat.
Ever taken care of a pet from birth for 4 years and then killing it and eating it? Because I have--and he tasted good.
|
On April 19 2012 11:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2012 11:04 lorkac wrote:On April 16 2012 11:01 sc2superfan101 wrote:On April 16 2012 10:55 Jay Chou wrote:On April 16 2012 10:47 sc2superfan101 wrote:
i wouldn't eat dog, but i wouldn't outlaw the eating of it either...
idk, something about a dog just makes it more important to me than a pig or a cow. That 'something' is irrational cognitive dissonance. 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. A: There is nothing wrong with eating dogs + B: I have a problem with eating dogs = C: Irrational Cognitive Dissonance "cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment" from wikipedia i have absolutely no discomfort caused by holding the "belief" that i won't eat dogs. you, like the other poster, have misapplied the term to mean something that it does not. furthermore, the irrational part doesn't belong there either, as even the A and B points of your strawman argument were not themselves mutually exclusive: just because one has a personal problem with doing something does not mean that they must necessarily find that thing to be immoral. i have a personal problem with watching over-the-top kids shows. there is nothing wrong with over-the-top kids shows, in a moral sense, but i still have a problem watching them, because i don't like them. there is nothing morally wrong, in my opinion, with the simple fact of consuming dog meat. however, i would not enjoy consuming dog meat, therefore i will not consume it. just as i won't buy a car that is bright green. there is nothing wrong with buying cars that are bright green, but i don't like the color. personal preferences are not truly irrational at all.
You think it's perfectly fine to eat dogs. But your brain feels uncomfortable at the act of doing it. Irrational cognitive dissonance. You "know" that it is okay, but you *feel* uncomfortable/disgusted at the actual act of doing it. How is this confusing? When you watch an over the top kid show, are you disturbed, or upset or uncomfortable--or are you just bored?
This isn't rocket science--and there's nothing wrong with feeling it. It happens to everyone, humans can't help it. You're not somehow a lesser person for feeling it--chill.
|
I'll try anything once - Jerry Springer
|
On April 19 2012 12:06 cz wrote:
I'll try anything once - Jerry Springer
Do you have a sister?
+ Show Spoiler +Obviously a joke--please don't take this post seriously 
|
On April 19 2012 11:07 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 18 2012 19:03 IAttackYou wrote:
Did you know that China, Korea, and Japan did not eat any beef until the western influence came? The main reason is that Asian culture evolved from agricultural society where bovine are heavily valued as tools to help plow the field for rice cultivation. It was outrageous to Asian culture to kill and eat a creature that offered so much utility to their daily lives. The European society however did not come from agricultural society, but hunter gatherer society. Just like how the bovines were being used as a tool for cultivation in Asia, dogs were used as tools for hunting in Europe. It is just simply unreasonable for each respective culture to simply kill what can benefit them so much. I personally love and respect all form of life on this earth and believe they are all valuable. I have no problem in people killing an animal if they are meant to be consumed. This is actually a lie, as beef was consumed in Korea. It was just prohibitively expensive for everyone except the aristocracy as the majority of the nation were agriculturalists. I'm pretty sure it was the same with China. I heard that the Japanese rarely ate beef as there actually was a law that prohibited the consumption of beef or something, but I can't verify this.
I think you might be right about Korea. But your definitely wrong about China, and I can give you text to show you that the consumption of beef is extremely limited in early Asian culture. It was also the Buddhist influence in Japan that prohibited consumption which is similar reasoning in China. Please able to credit your sources before calling a post complete lie. My whole point is that dogs were not viewed as pet in some culture but just another animal. People should understand that dogs have not been part of life historically in the countries that eat them as the western culture, so it really shouldn't be question of ethics.
|
On April 19 2012 12:29 IAttackYou wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 11:07 koreasilver wrote:On April 18 2012 19:03 IAttackYou wrote:
Did you know that China, Korea, and Japan did not eat any beef until the western influence came? The main reason is that Asian culture evolved from agricultural society where bovine are heavily valued as tools to help plow the field for rice cultivation. It was outrageous to Asian culture to kill and eat a creature that offered so much utility to their daily lives. The European society however did not come from agricultural society, but hunter gatherer society. Just like how the bovines were being used as a tool for cultivation in Asia, dogs were used as tools for hunting in Europe. It is just simply unreasonable for each respective culture to simply kill what can benefit them so much. I personally love and respect all form of life on this earth and believe they are all valuable. I have no problem in people killing an animal if they are meant to be consumed. This is actually a lie, as beef was consumed in Korea. It was just prohibitively expensive for everyone except the aristocracy as the majority of the nation were agriculturalists. I'm pretty sure it was the same with China. I heard that the Japanese rarely ate beef as there actually was a law that prohibited the consumption of beef or something, but I can't verify this. I think you might be right about Korea. But your definitely wrong about China, and I can give you text to show you that the consumption of beef is extremely limited in early Asian culture. It was also the Buddhist influence in Japan that prohibited consumption which is similar reasoning in China. Please able to credit your sources before calling a post complete lie. My whole point is that dogs were not viewed as pet in some culture but just another animal. People should understand that dogs have not been part of life historically in the countries that eat them as the western culture, so it really shouldn't be question of ethics.
I know that Koreans also ate little meat during Goryeo because of how strongly Buddhist influenced the Korean peninsula was at the period, but as that influenced waned heavily during Joseon meat eating became a lot more common. The limitation was simply due to the financial ability to consume an animal that has such worth as a tool. Your example is limited because once Buddhist influences waned the more meat was consumed if they were financially capable to do so. It's also kind of nonsense to say that the Europeans ate more beef and didn't consume dogs because of some idea that they were more of a hunter-gathering community when Europe also quickly became agricultural - just like every other major civilization. The difference in attitude toward the consumption of beef prior to modernity, and the attitude towards the consumption of canines today, simply cannot be reduced to some dichotomy of agriculturalists/hunter-gatherers. It just doesn't really work.
|
On April 19 2012 12:50 koreasilver wrote:Show nested quote +On April 19 2012 12:29 IAttackYou wrote:On April 19 2012 11:07 koreasilver wrote:On April 18 2012 19:03 IAttackYou wrote:
Did you know that China, Korea, and Japan did not eat any beef until the western influence came? The main reason is that Asian culture evolved from agricultural society where bovine are heavily valued as tools to help plow the field for rice cultivation. It was outrageous to Asian culture to kill and eat a creature that offered so much utility to their daily lives. The European society however did not come from agricultural society, but hunter gatherer society. Just like how the bovines were being used as a tool for cultivation in Asia, dogs were used as tools for hunting in Europe. It is just simply unreasonable for each respective culture to simply kill what can benefit them so much. I personally love and respect all form of life on this earth and believe they are all valuable. I have no problem in people killing an animal if they are meant to be consumed. This is actually a lie, as beef was consumed in Korea. It was just prohibitively expensive for everyone except the aristocracy as the majority of the nation were agriculturalists. I'm pretty sure it was the same with China. I heard that the Japanese rarely ate beef as there actually was a law that prohibited the consumption of beef or something, but I can't verify this. I think you might be right about Korea. But your definitely wrong about China, and I can give you text to show you that the consumption of beef is extremely limited in early Asian culture. It was also the Buddhist influence in Japan that prohibited consumption which is similar reasoning in China. Please able to credit your sources before calling a post complete lie. My whole point is that dogs were not viewed as pet in some culture but just another animal. People should understand that dogs have not been part of life historically in the countries that eat them as the western culture, so it really shouldn't be question of ethics. I know that Koreans also ate little meat during Goryeo because of how strongly Buddhist influenced the Korean peninsula was at the period, but as that influenced waned heavily during Joseon meat eating became a lot more common. The limitation was simply due to the financial ability to consume an animal that has such worth as a tool. Your example is limited because once Buddhist influences waned the more meat was consumed if they were financially capable to do so. It's also kind of nonsense to say that the Europeans ate more beef and didn't consume dogs because of some idea that they were more of a hunter-gathering community when Europe also quickly became agricultural - just like every other major civilization. The difference in attitude toward the consumption of beef prior to modernity, and the attitude towards the consumption of canines today, simply cannot be reduced to some dichotomy of agriculturalists/hunter-gatherers. It just doesn't really work.
I am simply giving a reasoning behind why European cultures are associated with dog by giving counter example with cattle in Asia. It is also not true that financial reason is behind why China did not consume cattle, since the people saw great uses for the animal rather than simply killed for meat. You cannot deny that culture is deeply rooted in the origin and agriculturalist and hunter gather background is foundation to this.
|
I've never really considering eating dog meat, but I guess now that I think about I would not have any problem with it. When I lived in Kazakhstan, I consumed horse, something many people here in the US find sacrilegious; personally, I didn't like it (since I had intestine, BLEGH), but I didn't have any moral inhibitions about it. I guess the same would go for dogs. I don't like how people are classifying dogs and pets in general as some other kind of animal. I mean, different places have different pets, and the vast majority of people have no problem eating those.
Not only that, but dogs are not even self-aware. This, to me, is a way that I personally draw the line; I won't eat anything that is self-aware. And just logically there is nothing that separates dogs from any other animal we eat. Besides shit that we have grown up with all our lives, "Dog is Man's best friend."
EDIT: 300th post 
|
On April 20 2012 00:55 CyDe wrote:
Not only that, but dogs are not even self-aware. This, to me, is a way that I personally draw the line; I won't eat anything that is self-aware.
How do you know Dogs are not self aware? They have emotion, can reason (more or less), and can develop relationships. What defines self-awareness?
While I wouldn't ever do so, I think eating dog is perfectly morally OK. If you take a Kantian perspective of the categorical imperative, and can morally will others to do the maxim of said action (that eating Dog Meat is OK), then according to Kant, it is morally permissible.
Utilitarians would justify the dogs are simply a means to an end, and as long as more people (not dogs, people) are benevolent about the action, then it is also morally permissible.
Virtue ethics is somewhat relativistic in nature, so it would just define the person rather than state whether or not it was morally OK.
The only issue arrises when we look at Natural Law. While some would say it is against nature to consume dog meat, I would argue that it is in accordance with nature, since Humans are above the natural food chain over dogs. Therefore, I find that while Dogs may not be appealing to some (or even most), there is nothing morally wrong with the consumption of dog meat.
|
On April 16 2012 02:13 TwilightStar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2012 15:57 Robinsa wrote:I think a bit worse than regular meat since dogs have been bred to be companions and thats what theyve become. It not only how we perceive it but its also most likely true that they make other bonds with humans. That being said, I still think ALL meat consumption is wrong and its extremely difficult to give any good moral arguments why eating meat would be ok. Humans CAN live without eating meat but we simply chose to kill for food. I guess a lot of people value a steak over an animal life... (I eat meat myself) On April 15 2012 08:32 TwilightStar wrote:
I never understood why people didn't like others eating dog meat. Dogs are animals, no? As are cows, pigs, and chickens.
They've been used for food for more than thousands of years. And that makes it right? I dont get your point if you have one. I absolutely hate when people try to use this argument. "Eating meat is wrong." No, it isn't. What makes you think that? Animnals eat other animals, it's nature. It's the food chain. It's science.
Well Animals kill each other as well. Do you think its ok to kill an other human being only because animals do it? Science has nothing to do with morals and neither has the food chain. I already told you what makes me think that. If you dont need to kill you shouldnt. Simple as that. I cant see how can justify morally.
|
I personally wouldnt eat dog meat willingly (unless I had no other choice). But I have no problems with other people eating it. What's the point of being on top of the food chain if you set a bunch of cultural stigma attached to many of your potential food sources.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
