Im just curious about how TL thinks about dog meat.
The topic of dog meat usually controversial and evokes strong reactions, but it seems to me that it's usually an emotional response. I myself am a Korean-American and Koreans are usually embarrassed by the fact that Koreans consume dog meat like a lot of the other East Asian countries. It is usually the elderly men in these countries that consume the meat because they were brought up experiencing their fathers do the same and so on.
I personally would never try dog meat but Im not embarrassed by this nor proud, because this is Korea's culture and I see nothing wrong with it. This is a subject that is vulnerable to slippery slope argument because you may argue "what if rape/murder/cannibalism is part of a culture" but I think that consuming dog meat is unethical to the extent of consuming cow/chicken/pig.
If you don't agree you are discriminating between the value of animals. Some people argue that dogs are cuter, more loyal or smarter then other animals. However there is no rigorous evidence to prove that they are. Also even if we assume dogs are cuter, more loyal and smarter then other animals it feels like that it is a very arbitrary standard to discriminate over these values. Should we have a measure of cuteness/intelligence/loyalty and consume whatever animal that is lower than an arbitrary limit?
It feels like people react with ethnocentrism about this topic because the western culture is use to personifying dogs for thousands of years but you have to account that asian countries have been consuming dogs as meat for thousands of years.
I do not want to argue about the morality of consuming meat(carnivory) but Im curious about the positions that are okay with consuming cow/chicken/pig but not okay with dog/cat meat.
and also assume that the dog meat is sanitary and goes through proper procedure. The dog is also killed humanely.
Poll: Are you okay with the consumption of dog meat?
YES (1304)
81%
NO (314)
19%
1618 total votes
Your vote: Are you okay with the consumption of dog meat?
I have had the displeasure of eating dogmeat before without knowledge. My dad brought home food from a party, and told me it was goat. Ill still never forgive him.
just because they are man's best friends.. i dont get it. I've seen shows where for example a farmer child grows up with a piglet or sheep but it ends up being butchered. same logic
The distinction I make is that cows/chickens/etc are raised intentionally for food whereas dogs/cats/etc are domesticated for companionship. I don't think there is anything morally wrong with eating them, I just wouldn't.
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.
What do you mean there is no evidence to prove that " that dogs are... more loyal... then other animals" other than the fact that since the dawn of time men have had Dogs as pets. Sayings always have some element of truth to them so the phrase "mans best friend"
Also you say that there is no evidence that "dogs are cuter than other animals" well that is quite a subjective thing to say and what one person finds cute compared to another person. The only kind of Pig or Cow which would be called cute would be a baby one, not the old ass cows, and especially, pigs.
Also you say that we are discriminating between different kinds of animals. This is not illegal and humans have ate these kinds of animals for hundreds of years.
There was a time when eating dog would have horrified me. And then I had to deal with a lot of rotten dog owners...
But in all seriousness, I wound up eating dog in a village in China and it was actually pretty good. Or maybe I was starved for meat as the closest we were eating at that point was fried fat. We were told it was pig until we pulled up one of the paws But it was actually pretty tasty and I would do it again.
We tend to anthropomorphize domestic animals and therefore the thought seems mortifying. But those dogs in China or east Malaysia are pretty sketchy to begin with. I understand that people find it repulsive and I wouldn't petition for McDonalds to include dog hamburger, but I don't think it's ethically wrong.
Many people treat dogs as "part of the family". I understand the abstract argument, but there's no way you care about it as much as others care about dogs. Basically, even if you're right you're never going to win the argument or make dog meat acceptable.
On April 15 2012 08:29 yeaR wrote: I don't mind people eating it, I just don't like the way it's being bred.. etc..
Look up the details of egg-farming (from chickens in particular, though I'm sure the conditions are just as bad for ducks, quails, etc.). The treatment's inhumane. I would say that most animals that provide food for us are treated poorly.
Anyways, lots of people keep fish and birds but have no issue eating salmon/tuna/etc. or chicken/quail/duck/etc., so it's kind of funny that some claim that eating dogs is barbaric or w/e just because they own a dog. I'm kind of ambivalent to it myself, but I wouldn't be horrified by the prospect of eating dogmeat. I'd take it over escargot any day of the week ...
I don't think I could ever eat a dog (unless I was starving) but I don't see it as a problem or something that should be barred. Some people treat cows, pigs, chickens, whatever as parts of their family too.
There was a poster in my high school school by some humanitarian club that said "You wouldn't eat a dog would you?" and a picture of a dog followed. Someone wrote "Yes, I fucking would."
My argument: yes I would eat it, it's just meat, and there's nothing paticularly unethical about it (vegetarianism/veganism is another topic of debate).
I think there's a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference between eating dog meat and eating "pet meat". If you can't rationalize eating one non-human animal, then you shouldn't be able to rationalize eating any other animal.
Not that I'd PREFER dog meat, but I'd eat it if need be.
Dogs are animals, they have meat on them like anything else. Nothing wrong with using them as an energy source, as long as you're not stealing someone's dog and eating it.
Edit: Just as an aside, if people are against it due to the conditions that the dogs are kept in, those people really should be against just about all meat production. Chickens in particular are commonly kept in absolutely abysmal conditions that I wouldn't wish on any animal. Cows bred for beef often are as well. Arguing against the conditions is a valid concern, but its not specific to dogs. I'm sure there are dogs that are raised for meat poorly and those that are raised well, just like any other animal.
I dont have a problem with eating dog meat per se, but for sure with agricultural farming / herding of dogs.There are differences to lets say farming cattle. Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Same applies to animals like apes, cats or elephants for example.
dog meat is the same as any other meat that you eat so I dont see what would stop you from doing it. I wouldnt be the one to kill it and package but, I dont package my own steak or chicken breast either soooo....
Yes, okay with it. People have pet ducks and cows and pigs, doesn't mean its just taboo. Plus to eat is to live, and I only consider human meat taboo to eat.
I want to say it's messed up, but so is killing any other animal for food, so I'd have to say it's alright. The only reason this disgusts me is the things I'm reminded of when it comes to people killing dogs, and cats - some really fucked up stuff.
I'm not the type of person to push my beliefs onto others, so if you want to eat dog, so be it,
I just think it's pretty damn nasty to eat household animals and should not be eaten unless you need to survive. It's not that they are cute, and others aren't, its that they are domesticated animals - a symbol of friendship to most, so it's just wrong in a lot of peoples minds, it's like seeing people eat Human meat IMO, but once again - if I'm gonna eat cow, pig, chicken, turkey, it's fair you can eat dog, lol.
On April 15 2012 08:54 Rice wrote: someone needs to make a graph with animal cuteness to human care as a ratio
Oh that's easy. Just tally how often Green Peace or PETA use each animal for there ads. Whatever you may think of their goals and methods, they know what they are doing in their ads.
On April 15 2012 09:00 Rice wrote: could someone describe what dog meat is like to us who arent familiar with it?
Hard to describe as I only had it once and I imagine it would taste different depending on how it was prepared. Mine was in a sort of stew/ soup. It definitely did NOT taste like chicken. Kinda sweet I guess? It's hard to describe tastes.
I'm not picky, I've tasted all sorts of meat. I don't see anything ethical wrong with eating dog, it seems a bit odd if it's a pet, but as a source of meat it seems legit. Honestly, people should slow down on the their meatconsumption altogether though.
I have no problems with people consuming dog meat. Just don't eat your own pets. I know some people raise dogs (not farm, raise) and eat them. That's a little cruel in my opinion.
How are they any different than any other animal? Are they inherently better? Leads me to question if humans are just animals or if we are any better, if so eating other humans would be perfectly fine too. idk and I don't have to becauseit really doesn't affect me at all.
I have no problems with people eating dog meat,I just don't understand why you would do such a thing when there is stuff like roasted pork around,unless your starving and have no other option. I just don't believe that a dog tastes better than cow/pork/etc.
I ate dog meat myself and it tasted good. Very soft meat. The only thing I dont like is how most of "dog farms" have really bad conditions. I always had the question: Do you need to treat animals good/right if you want to kill them? Like the animal should live their life comfortable to get killed?
On April 15 2012 08:29 yeaR wrote: I don't mind people eating it, I just don't like the way it's being bred.. etc..
Look up the details of egg-farming (from chickens in particular, though I'm sure the conditions are just as bad for ducks, quails, etc.). The treatment's inhumane. I would say that most animals that provide food for us are treated poorly.
Anyways, lots of people keep fish and birds but have no issue eating salmon/tuna/etc. or chicken/quail/duck/etc., so it's kind of funny that some claim that eating dogs is barbaric or w/e just because they own a dog. I'm kind of ambivalent to it myself, but I wouldn't be horrified by the prospect of eating dogmeat. I'd take it over escargot any day of the week ...
and then theres veal
there stuck in a cage where they literally have no room to move and fed until there jsut the right age then killed
and theres foie gras (gah i know i butchered the spelling) where they put a duck in a box essentially and forcefeed it until its liver is like 90% fat
but dam does it taste good, im pretty sure theres a positive correlation between the inhuman rearing of an animal and how good it tastes
nah but msot meat taste best when its owner got to run around and be more natural
Nothing wrong with it and animal used for meat is not a problem at all i don't think . I would eat dog or cat it wouldn't bug me but the dogs they are using aren't Fido its food where they use dog meat can't be picky.
On April 15 2012 09:00 Sky101 wrote: I have no problems with people consuming dog meat. Just don't eat your own pets. I know some people raise dogs (not farm, raise) and eat them. That's a little cruel in my opinion.
The opposite is true. If an animal is treated decently before it gets slaughtered I am fine with it. If it is tortured in the process, that is not ok. And mass farming of dogs will often amount to torture. Same with some other animal species that are simply not suited for that.
Some here are thinking way too simple when they assume it is only about "cuteness" that dogs are generally not farmed. Bunnies are cuter than dogs yet farmed without hesitation.
Another aspect is the ecological one. To eat dogs you have to feed them meat first, which you have to gather from other animals. The process is overall much more wasteful than eating animals that feed on plants instead of other animals.
Given that I eat pigs, which are substantially smarter than dogs, I think the dog meat is not unethical. However, I find dogs to be cute and likeable companions, and would be uncomfortable eating dog-- I have never eaten dog and unless there are some drastic changes in my life I don't plan on it.
On April 15 2012 08:27 NtsenG wrote: so you think its any more or less ok to eat cows or pigs just because they are less cute? lol
No. It isn't necessarily because dogs are "cute", but more to the fact that humans have kept them as pets for thousands of years for their obedience and loyalty. Cattle and live stock have always been a food source and not pets. I do have a biased viewpoint being that my mother is a veterinarian and I work in an animal hospital myself, but our society accepts cats and dogs as companions and not food. Thankfully, our world is changing and people are stopping these old traditions.
On April 15 2012 09:11 askTeivospy wrote: no i wouldnt eat a dog, and i would judge people who do so negatively so sorry if you're offended but i was raised not to bite into snoopy
The dogs they use are not snoopy. They are not usually domesticated ( usually) people and dogs have had this relationship for as long as humans can remember food , pet , protection and companion. Humans and dogs are intertwined humans feed the animals sometimes they feed us.
On April 15 2012 09:00 Sky101 wrote: I have no problems with people consuming dog meat. Just don't eat your own pets. I know some people raise dogs (not farm, raise) and eat them. That's a little cruel in my opinion.
The opposite is true. If an animal is treated decently before it gets slaughtered I am fine with it. If it is tortured in the process, that is not ok. And mass farming of dogs will often amount to torture. Same with some other animal species that are simply not suited for that.
Some here are thinking way too simple when they assume it is only about "cuteness" that dogs are generally not farmed. Bunnies are cuter than dogs yet farmed without hesitation.
Another aspect is the ecological one. To eat dogs you have to feed them meat first, which you have to gather from other animals. The process is overall much more wasteful than eating animals that feed on plants instead of other animals.
dogs are generally fed with meat from cows that are past the age of sexual maturity, generally these cows arent fit for human consuption since there so old so there fed to dogs instead so basically the dogs are jsut eating what humans throw out anyway
On April 15 2012 08:27 NtsenG wrote: so you think its any more or less ok to eat cows or pigs just because they are less cute? lol
No. It isn't necessarily because dogs are "cute", but more to the fact that humans have kept them as pets for thousands of years for their obedience and loyalty. Cattle and live stock have always been a food source and not pets. I do have a biased viewpoint being that my mother is a veterinarian and I work in an animal hospital myself, but our society accepts cats and dogs as companions and not food. Thankfully, our world is changing and people are stopping these old traditions.
So... because ancient traditions says cattle are for making milk and food... And the dogs are for companionship aswell as help with the livestock. We still see cows as meat/milk only - and dogs as what... companions? What happened to the whole idea of them actually helping out with getting the job done? Oh, right... The world changed... Well, so did the modern perception of the role of animals.
Humans are at the top of the food chain, and everything else that's edible is for consumption. Killing animals "humanely" is entirely irrelevant, as they aren't human to begin with. Animals kill each other in the wild every day in manners much more barbaric than the average slaughterhouse. It's just the culture brought up through thousands of years that dictates it's fine to eat something and not the other and there's nothing wrong with that.
Yeah I think its more the fact that most people have been emotionally connected to a dog before that makes it seem wrong, as well as they are considered part of the family. Unlike pigs, chickens, etc.
I think the meat is probably less nutritious then typical meats since its a carnivore and thus a tropic level down and I think its hard to deny man has had a special symbiotic bond with the dog that we haven't had with other animals. For these reasons I wouldn't eat it. At the same time though dogs are still animals and if the above two reasons don't hold sway with a particular person I wouldn't hold it against them
On April 15 2012 09:17 Mementoss wrote: Yeah I think its more the fact that most people have been emotionally connected to a dog before that makes it seem wrong, as well as they are considered part of the family. Unlike pigs, chickens, etc.
I was once bitten by a dog... A good friend of mine had 2 pet pigs, who were way more adorable than any dog I've met.
However... I still wouldn't mind eating any of them
But I think you've got a point. Dogowners and related might be biased - aswell as I am, being bitten and all...
I don't eat any animal products so yeah dog meat is pretty much the same to me as all other animal eat. If your gonna eat a cow or eat cheese for that matter, go ahead and eat a dog too?? Can't say I agree with your decision but I think it's silly that people get mad about it but then go and eat pigs which are smarter animals in the first place.(and cute too!)
On April 15 2012 09:11 askTeivospy wrote: no i wouldnt eat a dog, and i would judge people who do so negatively so sorry if you're offended but i was raised not to bite into snoopy
The dogs they use are not snoopy. They are not usually domesticated ( usually) people and dogs have had this relationship for as long as humans can remember food , pet , protection and companion. Humans and dogs are intertwined humans feed the animals sometimes they feed us.
On April 15 2012 09:06 Forikorder wrote: but dam does it taste good, im pretty sure theres a positive correlation between the inhuman rearing of an animal and how good it tastes
oh crap. sounds like you never had meat of an animal that lived a really good life.
you have NO clue how much better it is. absolutely no comparison at all. it is so ridiculously good. omfg.. a steak will literally melt in your mouth. it's the best meat i've ever eaten yet, by far. i'm sure it compares to kobe beef.
I personally wouldn't eat dog but It doesn't bother me to know that people do. I just have to assume that those that do simply aren't applying the same value system to them that I am.
On April 15 2012 08:27 NtsenG wrote: so you think its any more or less ok to eat cows or pigs just because they are less cute? lol
No. It isn't necessarily because dogs are "cute", but more to the fact that humans have kept them as pets for thousands of years for their obedience and loyalty. Cattle and live stock have always been a food source and not pets. I do have a biased viewpoint being that my mother is a veterinarian and I work in an animal hospital myself, but our society accepts cats and dogs as companions and not food. Thankfully, our world is changing and people are stopping these old traditions.
So... because ancient traditions says cattle are for making milk and food... And the dogs are for companionship aswell as help with the livestock. We still see cows as meat/milk only - and dogs as what... companions? What happened to the whole idea of them actually helping out with getting the job done? Oh, right... The world changed... Well, so did the modern perception of the role of animals.
You should probably reread your post, as it seems like you want to disagree with me, yet you are agreeing with me.
On April 15 2012 08:26 gnr9292 wrote: If you don't agree you are discriminating between the value of animals. Some people argue that dogs are cuter, more loyal or smarter then other animals. However there is no rigorous evidence to prove that they are. Also even if we assume dogs are cuter, more loyal and smarter then other animals it feels like that it is a very arbitrary standard to discriminate over these values. Should we have a measure of cuteness/intelligence/loyalty and consume whatever animal that is lower than an arbitrary limit?
Scientifically, pigs are smarter than dogs and there is rigorous evidence to prove it.
On April 15 2012 09:06 Forikorder wrote: but dam does it taste good, im pretty sure theres a positive correlation between the inhuman rearing of an animal and how good it tastes
oh crap. sounds like you never had meat of an animal that lived a really good life.
you have NO clue how much better it is. absolutely no comparison at all. it is so ridiculously good. omfg.. a steak will literally melt in your mouth. it's the best meat i've ever eaten yet, by far. i'm sure it compares to kobe beef.
If you find a bunny that was a kids pet, the meat is sooooo good, the meat is so tender it just falls off the bone.
I'm sure if my childhood pet was a pig I would have a hard time eating pork, I don't condone people for eating dog meat, but I would never try it, because I would never people to look at my dog agian.
Many people made a mistake by thinking that people that eat dog meat eat their own dog. No, its not true. I've raised several dogs in my life and I love them very much and ofc I don't eat them -_-.
Nowadays, there are dog farm just like chicken or cow. Its fine to eat dog meat, dog meat is high in protein and quite delicious. But dog meat is no way a mainstream meat like chicken, pork or cow. In Vietnam eating dog meat is popular but we nearly never eat it at home. Its more like a restaurant meat. Also, women don't eat dog, dog meat actually quite smelly in a way that scare women from eating them.
I myself eat dog meat like once every 2 months or so. Dog meat + rice wine are da best
On April 15 2012 09:06 Forikorder wrote: but dam does it taste good, im pretty sure theres a positive correlation between the inhuman rearing of an animal and how good it tastes
oh crap. sounds like you never had meat of an animal that lived a really good life.
you have NO clue how much better it is. absolutely no comparison at all. it is so ridiculously good. omfg.. a steak will literally melt in your mouth. it's the best meat i've ever eaten yet, by far. i'm sure it compares to kobe beef.
oh crap sounds lke you didnt read the entire post since i go on to say how deliecious free range (non-veal) meat is
On April 15 2012 09:06 Forikorder wrote: but dam does it taste good, im pretty sure theres a positive correlation between the inhuman rearing of an animal and how good it tastes
oh crap. sounds like you never had meat of an animal that lived a really good life.
you have NO clue how much better it is. absolutely no comparison at all. it is so ridiculously good. omfg.. a steak will literally melt in your mouth. it's the best meat i've ever eaten yet, by far. i'm sure it compares to kobe beef.
If you find a bunny that was a kids pet, the meat is sooooo good, they meat is so tender it just falls off the bone.
depends on how much it was caressed, i guess.
but a cow that lived its life outside, walking a lot, omg! the meat is beyond amazing.
On April 15 2012 09:06 Forikorder wrote: but dam does it taste good, im pretty sure theres a positive correlation between the inhuman rearing of an animal and how good it tastes
oh crap. sounds like you never had meat of an animal that lived a really good life.
you have NO clue how much better it is. absolutely no comparison at all. it is so ridiculously good. omfg.. a steak will literally melt in your mouth. it's the best meat i've ever eaten yet, by far. i'm sure it compares to kobe beef.
oh crap sounds lke you didnt read the entire post since i go on to say how deliecious free range (non-veal) meat is
I don't care how its prepared, I don't care what animal it is, I will eat it at least once
and I've eaten dog twice...not a single fuck was given
As for the morals...we are omnivores, basically we're designed to eat anything in a survival situation...and if you are like 'awwwww that animals cute' in a survival situation then you deserve to die....the only difference between survival and eating normally is that we can 'choose' different foods to eat...but it's less morals and people just thinking 'awww but they're so cute'
I wouldn't do it, but I don't mind that other people would.
I like dogs too much to eat one, but I understand that there are people who don't feel the same way. As long as they don't try to eat MY dog, I don't have a problem with it :D
On April 15 2012 09:35 Millitron wrote: I wouldn't do it, but I don't mind that other people would.
I like dogs too much to eat one, but I understand that there are people who don't feel the same way. As long as they don't try to eat MY dog, I don't have a problem with it :D
Yep, most westerner I know are cool with other eating dog meat but not themselves till I take them to a restaurant I told them they are eating pork.
You really should try it sometime, cos these dog are from dog farm, not your dog or someone else's dog, and the taste is just really nice.
On April 15 2012 08:27 NtsenG wrote: so you think its any more or less ok to eat cows or pigs just because they are less cute? lol
No. It isn't necessarily because dogs are "cute", but more to the fact that humans have kept them as pets for thousands of years for their obedience and loyalty. Cattle and live stock have always been a food source and not pets. I do have a biased viewpoint being that my mother is a veterinarian and I work in an animal hospital myself, but our society accepts cats and dogs as companions and not food. Thankfully, our world is changing and people are stopping these old traditions.
So... because ancient traditions says cattle are for making milk and food... And the dogs are for companionship aswell as help with the livestock. We still see cows as meat/milk only - and dogs as what... companions? What happened to the whole idea of them actually helping out with getting the job done? Oh, right... The world changed... Well, so did the modern perception of the role of animals.
You should probably reread your post, as it seems like you want to disagree with me, yet you are agreeing with me.
I don't want to disagree. Like you I just wanna point out that the world is changing and so should our perception of it. And the society you talk about is just not one I can identify myself as being part of.
On April 15 2012 08:27 NtsenG wrote: so you think its any more or less ok to eat cows or pigs just because they are less cute? lol
No. It isn't necessarily because dogs are "cute", but more to the fact that humans have kept them as pets for thousands of years for their obedience and loyalty. Cattle and live stock have always been a food source and not pets. I do have a biased viewpoint being that my mother is a veterinarian and I work in an animal hospital myself, but our society accepts cats and dogs as companions and not food. Thankfully, our world is changing and people are stopping these old traditions.
So... because ancient traditions says cattle are for making milk and food... And the dogs are for companionship aswell as help with the livestock. We still see cows as meat/milk only - and dogs as what... companions? What happened to the whole idea of them actually helping out with getting the job done? Oh, right... The world changed... Well, so did the modern perception of the role of animals.
Cows are huge and supply massive quantities of protein, fat, and milk; one sacrifice can feed many people. Dogs are usually small and skinny.
On April 15 2012 09:06 Forikorder wrote: but dam does it taste good, im pretty sure theres a positive correlation between the inhuman rearing of an animal and how good it tastes
oh crap. sounds like you never had meat of an animal that lived a really good life.
you have NO clue how much better it is. absolutely no comparison at all. it is so ridiculously good. omfg.. a steak will literally melt in your mouth. it's the best meat i've ever eaten yet, by far. i'm sure it compares to kobe beef.
oh crap sounds lke you didnt read the entire post since i go on to say how deliecious free range (non-veal) meat is
On April 15 2012 08:27 NtsenG wrote: so you think its any more or less ok to eat cows or pigs just because they are less cute? lol
No. It isn't necessarily because dogs are "cute", but more to the fact that humans have kept them as pets for thousands of years for their obedience and loyalty. Cattle and live stock have always been a food source and not pets. I do have a biased viewpoint being that my mother is a veterinarian and I work in an animal hospital myself, but our society accepts cats and dogs as companions and not food. Thankfully, our world is changing and people are stopping these old traditions.
So... because ancient traditions says cattle are for making milk and food... And the dogs are for companionship aswell as help with the livestock. We still see cows as meat/milk only - and dogs as what... companions? What happened to the whole idea of them actually helping out with getting the job done? Oh, right... The world changed... Well, so did the modern perception of the role of animals.
You should probably reread your post, as it seems like you want to disagree with me, yet you are agreeing with me.
I don't want to disagree. Like you I just wanna point out that the world is changing and so should our perception of it. And the society you talk about is just not one I can identify myself as being part of.
Dogs do still help "get the job done". Sled dogs are still a big part of culture in northern Canada and Alaska. Dogs still are used for herding at some farms. Not to mention all the dogs the government and police use to sniff out bombs, drugs, and fugitives.
Most americans have no idea how common it was in colonial america.
My only issue with anyone eating anything would be the humane raise and slaughter of said animal. I don't think dog meat can be done so cost efficiently nor is it enough of a delicacy to demand the high prices required by humane raise and slaughter.
On April 15 2012 09:35 Millitron wrote: I wouldn't do it, but I don't mind that other people would.
I like dogs too much to eat one, but I understand that there are people who don't feel the same way. As long as they don't try to eat MY dog, I don't have a problem with it :D
Yep, most westerner I know are cool with other eating dog meat but not themselves till I take them to a restaurant I told them they are eating pork.
You really should try it sometime, cos these dog are from dog farm, not your dog or someone else's dog, and the taste is just really nice.
i dont really mind other people eating dog meat, but if u did that too me, id break ur fucking face
On April 15 2012 09:06 Forikorder wrote: but dam does it taste good, im pretty sure theres a positive correlation between the inhuman rearing of an animal and how good it tastes
oh crap. sounds like you never had meat of an animal that lived a really good life.
you have NO clue how much better it is. absolutely no comparison at all. it is so ridiculously good. omfg.. a steak will literally melt in your mouth. it's the best meat i've ever eaten yet, by far. i'm sure it compares to kobe beef.
oh crap sounds lke you didnt read the entire post since i go on to say how deliecious free range (non-veal) meat is
On April 15 2012 08:27 NtsenG wrote: so you think its any more or less ok to eat cows or pigs just because they are less cute? lol
No. It isn't necessarily because dogs are "cute", but more to the fact that humans have kept them as pets for thousands of years for their obedience and loyalty. Cattle and live stock have always been a food source and not pets. I do have a biased viewpoint being that my mother is a veterinarian and I work in an animal hospital myself, but our society accepts cats and dogs as companions and not food. Thankfully, our world is changing and people are stopping these old traditions.
So... because ancient traditions says cattle are for making milk and food... And the dogs are for companionship aswell as help with the livestock. We still see cows as meat/milk only - and dogs as what... companions? What happened to the whole idea of them actually helping out with getting the job done? Oh, right... The world changed... Well, so did the modern perception of the role of animals.
Cows are huge and supply massive quantities of protein, fat, and milk; one sacrifice can feed many people. Dogs are usually small and skinny.
Chickens are small, too, so are calves, fish... you get the idea.
On April 15 2012 08:27 NtsenG wrote: so you think its any more or less ok to eat cows or pigs just because they are less cute? lol
No. It isn't necessarily because dogs are "cute", but more to the fact that humans have kept them as pets for thousands of years for their obedience and loyalty. Cattle and live stock have always been a food source and not pets. I do have a biased viewpoint being that my mother is a veterinarian and I work in an animal hospital myself, but our society accepts cats and dogs as companions and not food. Thankfully, our world is changing and people are stopping these old traditions.
So... because ancient traditions says cattle are for making milk and food... And the dogs are for companionship aswell as help with the livestock. We still see cows as meat/milk only - and dogs as what... companions? What happened to the whole idea of them actually helping out with getting the job done? Oh, right... The world changed... Well, so did the modern perception of the role of animals.
Cows are huge and supply massive quantities of protein, fat, and milk; one sacrifice can feed many people. Dogs are usually small and skinny.
Chickens are small, too, so are calves, fish... you get the idea.
i mean some people eat bugs
im pretty sure size has nothing to do with it
if one cow feeds 5 times more people but for the price of one cow you can raise 6 dogs then its worth it
On April 15 2012 08:29 Emnjay808 wrote: Oh god, really?
I have had the displeasure of eating dogmeat before without knowledge. My dad brought home food from a party, and told me it was goat. Ill still never forgive him.
On April 15 2012 09:35 Millitron wrote: I wouldn't do it, but I don't mind that other people would.
I like dogs too much to eat one, but I understand that there are people who don't feel the same way. As long as they don't try to eat MY dog, I don't have a problem with it :D
Yep, most westerner I know are cool with other eating dog meat but not themselves till I take them to a restaurant I told them they are eating pork.
You really should try it sometime, cos these dog are from dog farm, not your dog or someone else's dog, and the taste is just really nice.
I agree with Kojak21 on this. If you did this to me, you'd need extensive plastic surgery.
It is completely wrong to trick people into eating something they don't want to.
On April 15 2012 08:29 yeaR wrote: I don't mind people eating it, I just don't like the way it's being bred.. etc..
Anyways, lots of people keep fish and birds but have no issue eating salmon/tuna/etc. or chicken/quail/duck/etc., so it's kind of funny that some claim that eating dogs is barbaric or w/e just because they own a dog. I'm kind of ambivalent to it myself, but I wouldn't be horrified by the prospect of eating dogmeat. I'd take it over escargot any day of the week ...
Lol but people don't own some salmon XD maybe goldfish or something like that but who eats goldfish?
I'm alright with other people's consumption of dog meat, I just don't wish to eat it myself as it is something that I would wish to never have to consume (same is true with cat meat). The reason being is that I was raised with the knowledge of dogs and cats being pets and not food, but I am tolerant enough to accept that not everyone else has those same views.
I never have seen a problem in eating anything. As a young boy we often went to friends and family in french and we almost tried everything. I grew up in a farm and my oldest brother and sister were riding horses on a highly competetive level and for that reason they don't want to eat horse meat, however we had alot of different animals like cows, pigs, chickens pidgeons peacocks etc and none really has a problem in eating those. I think the main problem is that "dogs" and similiar animals are general pets that you grew up with, and although i would be really intrested in seeing how my own dog tastes I cant kill him, but I have no problem in trying out dog-meat. Same is with all the other pets i/we have had. In fact reading this thread I am kinda getting eager to try it out.
The only "problem" I could see is that you would need to feed dogs meat(mostly) to grow, and you might as well cut that middle step and eat that meat your self. On a side note someone did say that the meat used is mostly old meat that wouldnt be good for human consumption... Variety ftw
I'm Korean, and if someone asks me if I eat dog I just reply, "UMAD? [trollface]" I'm not particularly embarassed about it. It's just funny that people make a huge issue out of it.
I have personal reasons for not eating dog though. I'd rather play with a dog than eat one. And my mom tried it once, said it tasted like crap, and never wanted to try it again. She's not a picky eater either, so it probably does taste bad...
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.
On April 15 2012 09:51 scarrow wrote: Holy shit, do not a lot of people own dogs on TL or something?
Our two dogs are part of our family and i'd protect them as such. Recently went to Canada for 3 weeks, only thing I missed were my two dogs.
It's not quite the same as what this topic is about though, is it?
If you bring up any animal as "part of the family" and treat it as such, you're not going to want to eat that particular animal regardless of whether it's a dog or a calf or a lamb or whatever.
I think though this illustrates the problem with suggesting eating dog meat in the West - here every single dog is a domestic pet, and so any suggestion of eating dog meat conjures up the image of eating a pet dog. Whereas in China, Korea, etc, dogs haven't really been considered pets until pretty recently and so there isn't that automatic stigma against it.
I don't really see why eating dogs is any less ethical than eating any other animal. I haven't seen any compelling evidence that dogs are more intelligent than other animals (though domestic dogs are certainly much easier to train than most animals), so it seems to me to be more a cultural issue than an ethical one.
On April 15 2012 08:27 NtsenG wrote: so you think its any more or less ok to eat cows or pigs just because they are less cute? lol
No. It isn't necessarily because dogs are "cute", but more to the fact that humans have kept them as pets for thousands of years for their obedience and loyalty. Cattle and live stock have always been a food source and not pets. I do have a biased viewpoint being that my mother is a veterinarian and I work in an animal hospital myself, but our society accepts cats and dogs as companions and not food. Thankfully, our world is changing and people are stopping these old traditions.
So... because ancient traditions says cattle are for making milk and food... And the dogs are for companionship aswell as help with the livestock. We still see cows as meat/milk only - and dogs as what... companions? What happened to the whole idea of them actually helping out with getting the job done? Oh, right... The world changed... Well, so did the modern perception of the role of animals.
Cows are huge and supply massive quantities of protein, fat, and milk; one sacrifice can feed many people. Dogs are usually small and skinny.
Chickens are small, too, so are calves, fish... you get the idea.
i mean some people eat bugs
im pretty sure size has nothing to do with it
if one cow feeds 5 times more people but for the price of one cow you can raise 6 dogs then its worth it
It's actually less efficient to raise large animals like cows. A pound of cow meat requires 4-6 pounds of grain. A pound of bugs requires far less. Also, no one gives a shit about how bugs are treated so factory farming wouldn't be frowned upon.
Fried grasshoppers are actually pretty good, everyone should try them.
On April 15 2012 08:26 gnr9292 wrote: The dog is also killed humanely.
Doesn't that make it murder? ^^
In my opinion i don't really care that much if there are people that eat dog food and how the dogs lived/died. I think cats are at least as smart as dogs and they still get eaten. You can make the same argument about most animals. Nature is cruel, so are humans.
Dog's have a special relationship to humans that I think is completely unique to dogs... I don't think any other species can give that same bond. Every one of the dogs that's being bred for eating could be a child's best friend/loyal companion to the household.
In short, you don't eat man's best friend. But whatever, biased point of view.. etc... like a wise man once said... they don't think it be like it is, but it do.
Why not ? I have a pet rabbit and I still eat rabbit from time to time. The only problem I have with it is that dogs and cats are predators and not preys, unlike cows, pigs and chickens which have been bred for meat consumption for a lot longer than dogs and cats, so the meat probably isn't all that tasty (I could be wrong on this and Korean/Chinese dogs have been bred for their meat for far longer than I think).
It's a no for me, because I believe we shouldn't eat carnivores because it's more likely they transfer diseases. Funny enough I don't know for sure it's actually true, but I for my part am following this principle (most of the world does it traditionally too, anyways)
I have a problem with eating dog meat, but not from an ethical standpoint, but rather from a resource effiencency standpoint. It must be horribly inneffiecent to feed a dog for eating, and i am then against the eating of most meat for that reason. If i am not mistaken chickens are the most "effiecent" meat we eat with 1 kg of chicken = 1 kg of food.
Yet i still eat meat. hy hy hypocrasy :D
But i would not say that "oh no, dogs are cute so you can't eat them" before showing another burger down my throath
On April 15 2012 10:05 mememolly wrote: meat is meat, you can't be ok with beef and say that dog meat is a no-no
Sure you can....why do you think otherwise?
Anyways, I wouldn't eat dog meat. I've had too many dogs as pets in the past so I would end up thinking of them while eating, which wouldn't be pleasant.
"I think that consuming dog meat is unethical to the extent of consuming cow/chicken/pig."
Yep, I agree with this sentiment. Anyone else who thinks otherwise will need to voice a hell of an opinion to convince me. And don't give me that "man's best friend" bullshit. Anyone that would feed you for free would be your best friend too.
eating an animal is eating an animal. i don't give a fuck what other people eat, but i don't live in a place where dog meat is accessible. although i love dogs, i'd eat one if presented with the opportunity
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:
As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
On April 15 2012 11:19 Dbars wrote: That is still a very quick death for that animal in the video imo. Being inhumane would be making the animal suffer.
It's not a very quick death, taking 3-4 shots to the head with a stick is not the fastest way to kill an animal, when it could be done fairly cheaply with a bolt gun, the same as we use to kill cattle.
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
That's not the issue here, the real issue is the treatment of dogs before they're eaten. Fancy being skinned alive then cooked alive, it is disgusting and inhumane.
On April 15 2012 11:19 Dbars wrote: That is still a very quick death for that animal in the video imo. Being inhumane would be making the animal suffer.
On April 15 2012 08:29 Emnjay808 wrote: Oh god, really?
I have had the displeasure of eating dogmeat before without knowledge. My dad brought home food from a party, and told me it was goat. Ill still never forgive him.
On April 15 2012 09:35 Millitron wrote: I wouldn't do it, but I don't mind that other people would.
I like dogs too much to eat one, but I understand that there are people who don't feel the same way. As long as they don't try to eat MY dog, I don't have a problem with it :D
Yep, most westerner I know are cool with other eating dog meat but not themselves till I take them to a restaurant I told them they are eating pork.
You really should try it sometime, cos these dog are from dog farm, not your dog or someone else's dog, and the taste is just really nice.
That is really not cool, if i found out a good friend of mine was doing that i would never want to see them again.
I see it has more of a culture thing then ethical one. Just how i think some people from India frown on eating beef while it is fine in western culture.
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
That's not the issue here, the real issue is the treatment of dogs before they're eaten. Fancy being skinned alive then cooked alive, it is disgusting and inhumane.
The real issue here is whether its okay to eat dogs from moral standpoint. Whatever way you cook them is entirely separate subject.
dogs are not bred for consumption. how much meat is on a dog? i can't believe the poll here.
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
well then it seems your opinion is completely irrelevent, and you have no idea how dogs were used in tribes and shit. they were used to help hunt, and what would they hunt? shit like deer and probably horses (eventually led to pig/cow farms once they got their shit together) and dogs were never hunted down and killed to consume, unless they were hungry and chased a pack of wolves or something.
i can't take vegetarians seriously who have no idea of human history and would know that if everyone was a vegatarian, you wouldn't be alive today.
the #1 problem with dog consumption? there is absolutely 0 reason to eat a dog compared to other ways to get food. this is 2012, there was many many many more ways that are also cheaper in order to get food onto someones plate.
This thread is bogged down by the dissonance between the philosophical formulation in the title and the highschoolish presentation in the body of the thread itself. You preface the discussion with "ethics" and reinforce it with arguments such as cuteness and loyalty? This thread could go much further with a proper body of argument, especially one actually pertaining to ethics.
The issue is simple. On the primary level, it is nothing more than discriminating between sources of meet. What rationalizes the consumption of one source of meet over another: is it human habit? superficial assignment of values? What? If we go much deeper, in the history of Philosophy, animals existence has always been justified to provide for the needs of humans. Aristotle explicitly assigned animals roles as the providers of food and clothing. The Christian bible endowed man with the dominion over all plants and animals. St. Paul even posed a rhetorical question, “Doth God care for oxen?”, to which his obvious answer is "no" as only man was made from the image of God, and is therefore divine. Even as late as Bentham and Mills, the philosophical formulation on animal cruelty (killing, eating) has always been conservative, namely that, even risking logical falsity, cruelty to animals is only to be prohibited because it may open to cruelty to humans. The animals themselves are of no consequence. Of course, there is the whole Eastern tradition to consider as well, in the belief of soul and reincarnation. Now let us focus on the actual "dog meat" and "ethics". The actual argument of ethics lie not in the proximity humans have developed with animals, especially domesticated once such as dogs, but in the greater essence of life, of all forms, that they are capable of fear and suffering, and they deserve a degree of dignity. The easiest example of this to strike at the heart of pro-dog meat eaters is the manner in which dogs are commonly extinguished, usually electrocuted, hanged, or plain bludgeoned. Many have argued that legalizing dog meat would regulate the "breeding" and manner of producing dog meat (ie killing dogs) to state sanctioned humane methods.
Now, beyond essentialist "ethics", I would like to redescribe Levinas' "ethics of the human face" and extend it to dogs, which you could guess results in my disagreement with killing dogs for their meat - but that is me talking as a dog person. But I am not much of a cat person, but I also don't agree to cat meat. To further this complication, I would say that I am a bit of a cow person as I have fond memories of youth when my parent take me to farm on vacation and I get to feed and ride on the few cattles that we have - yet I have no objection whatever to eating beef.
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
also, i guess you're completely fine with human consumption too? we're only an animal, one with a conscience. that's the major difference between us and our primape relatives. you're fine with cannibalism since meat is meat?
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
also, i guess you're completely fine with human consumption too? we're only an animal, one with a conscience. that's the major difference between us and our primape relatives. you're fine with cannibalism since meat is meat?
what argument do you have for that?
This has been a major point of contention within the philosophical community, and the general consensus has been a murky one. There are some that say humans have a higher order than animals, and as such are allowed to be eaten, but that is an extremely weak statement (How does one say humans are of a higher order?).
We're okay with eating cows, and we're okay with eating pigs, but when it comes to dogs (merely another animal) we all of a sudden say "NOPE!". Since we're debating the ethics of eating an animal, if you can justify eating a pig then logically you can transfer that justification onto a dog.
There was an interesting debate that I once I got to see talking about the morals of eating animals at all. If you want to argue that eating any animal is morally permissible, then you should be able to extend that to humans. However, almost universally, we disagree with that jump, but on paper it looks fine. Is it because we're human that we are essentially species-ist in that we won't eat our own?
If you are into debating however, avoid the slippery slope argument that you just gave, looking at extremes rarely allows you to get your point accross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
also, i guess you're completely fine with human consumption too? we're only an animal, one with a conscience. that's the major difference between us and our primape relatives. you're fine with cannibalism since meat is meat?
what argument do you have for that?
What argument do you have for the one you propose that animals somehow don't have a conscience? Of course animals have a conscience. They're just not as intellectually developed as us. But that does not mean the pain and fear etc. That they feel is any less significant (like saying a mentally handicapped person cannot feel pain).
On April 15 2012 12:04 xsenemy wrote: “A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself.”
I could never eat dog meat and i can`t accept it.
Wouldn't say the only thing. Did you know that pigs are more intelligent than dogs and can be trained in the same way and develop the same bonds of loyalty etc?
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
also, i guess you're completely fine with human consumption too? we're only an animal, one with a conscience. that's the major difference between us and our primape relatives. you're fine with cannibalism since meat is meat?
what argument do you have for that?
There's nothing inherently wrong with consumption of human flesh either. I wouldn't care if someone ate me after I was dead.
To me it seems like not many of you have had dogs as pets before. I would understand eating dogs if they were bred for it but eating pet dogs is cruel especially if they had owners, who maybe did not want them anymore.
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
also, i guess you're completely fine with human consumption too? we're only an animal, one with a conscience. that's the major difference between us and our primape relatives. you're fine with cannibalism since meat is meat?
what argument do you have for that?
cannibalism is only frowned on because somehow man decided that killing each other sint a good idea
On April 15 2012 12:04 xsenemy wrote: “A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than he loves himself.”
I could never eat dog meat and i can`t accept it.
Wouldn't say the only thing. Did you know that pigs are more intelligent than dogs and can be trained in the same way and develop the same bonds of loyalty etc?
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
also, i guess you're completely fine with human consumption too? we're only an animal, one with a conscience. that's the major difference between us and our primape relatives. you're fine with cannibalism since meat is meat?
what argument do you have for that?
cannibalism is only frowned on because somehow man decided that killing each other sint a good idea
Sometimes I wonder about the consistency/texture of human meat. In my imagination, it's not particularly great. Not sure how I imagine the taste. Hm.
On April 15 2012 12:14 Fealthas wrote: To me it seems like not many of you have had dogs as pets before. I would understand eating dogs if they were bred for it but eating pet dogs is cruel especially if they had owners, who maybe did not want them anymore.
Never is it stated that we're going to be kidnapping dogs from people for the purpose of eating them. Imagine it more like a farm where cows are grown, fed, and killed for their meat.
I don't get it why people think it is bad to eat animals we keep as pets but why it is ok for us to eat animals other cultures keep as pets.
I don't eat meat (insecure meat eaters don't bother trying to troll me as usual) myself but I have eaten rabbit in the past. They make cuter pets than dogs. Yet you can't eat dogs becase they are cute?
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
also, i guess you're completely fine with human consumption too? we're only an animal, one with a conscience. that's the major difference between us and our primape relatives. you're fine with cannibalism since meat is meat?
what argument do you have for that?
If you are into debating however, avoid the slippery slope argument that you just gave, looking at extremes rarely allows you to get your point accross (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope)
I disagree with this, going to an extreme forces one to evaluate first principles. Its an easy way to cut through the bullshit and have everyone easily see and evaluate the very foundation of what is being discussed.
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
That's not the issue here, the real issue is the treatment of dogs before they're eaten. Fancy being skinned alive then cooked alive, it is disgusting and inhumane.
The real issue here is whether its okay to eat dogs from moral standpoint. Whatever way you cook them is entirely separate subject.
Well it is not, as it isn't okay to eat pork, beef, lamb, deer, etc. Only fish as they do not possess a central nervous system.
Seafood is the best
But you're willing to oversee the atrocities committed by dog eating nations? (Don't deflect)
Actually I sympathize (and agree to an extent) with the ethical stance of vegetarians for the most part. But I eat red meat anyway. It's convenient, tastes good, easy to prepare, and right on the shelf. Pig, cow, cat, dog, etc... I wouldn't discriminate in my ethical misbehavior.
But it might be going a bit too far to skin your pet and put him over a grill. It's okay only if they're put in an animal-like concentration camp at birth then "humanely killed" (oh the irony) when the time comes. That's apparently the line that people are willing to make on the issue.
On April 15 2012 08:27 NtsenG wrote: so you think its any more or less ok to eat cows or pigs just because they are less cute? lol
'nuff said.
And by the way, most pork and chicken meat is bred in an unimaginably cruel and heartless way, and that is why I choose to become a vegetarian.
Also pigs are probably even smarter than dogs, why are people not upset about eating pigs? Dolphins are some of the smartest animals on the planet, yet people eat tons of seafish, although everybody knows that hundreds of dolphins are killed as collateral damage every year.
On April 15 2012 12:35 FuzzyJAM wrote: Any non-vegetarian who has an issue with dog meat has some serious logic issues.
So you think cow = dog? Dogs have been domesticated. Cows have not. There is a difference, no matter how hard you want to try and put a round peg in a square hole.
I would never eat dog myself having had a pet one before, but I don't criticize anyone for eating one. Pigs are just as smart as dogs, and we(the non vegetarians) don't have any problem eating pigs.
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
also, i guess you're completely fine with human consumption too? we're only an animal, one with a conscience. that's the major difference between us and our primape relatives. you're fine with cannibalism since meat is meat?
what argument do you have for that?
cannibalism is only frowned on because somehow man decided that killing each other sint a good idea
Actually, cannibalism is a bad idea because of the danger of prion diseases.
On April 15 2012 12:35 FuzzyJAM wrote: Any non-vegetarian who has an issue with dog meat has some serious logic issues.
So you think cow = dog? Dogs have been domesticated. Cows have not. There is a difference, no matter how hard you want to try and put a round peg in a square hole.
On April 15 2012 12:35 FuzzyJAM wrote: Any non-vegetarian who has an issue with dog meat has some serious logic issues.
So you think cow = dog? Dogs have been domesticated. Cows have not. There is a difference, no matter how hard you want to try and put a round peg in a square hole.
What? Cows have been domesticated since......forever....
On April 15 2012 12:35 FuzzyJAM wrote: Any non-vegetarian who has an issue with dog meat has some serious logic issues.
So you think cow = dog? Dogs have been domesticated. Cows have not. There is a difference, no matter how hard you want to try and put a round peg in a square hole.
What? Cows have been domesticated since......forever....
On April 15 2012 12:35 FuzzyJAM wrote: Any non-vegetarian who has an issue with dog meat has some serious logic issues.
So you think cow = dog? Dogs have been domesticated. Cows have not. There is a difference, no matter how hard you want to try and put a round peg in a square hole.
On April 15 2012 12:35 FuzzyJAM wrote: Any non-vegetarian who has an issue with dog meat has some serious logic issues.
So you think cow = dog? Dogs have been domesticated. Cows have not. There is a difference, no matter how hard you want to try and put a round peg in a square hole.
Can you define "domesticated" please? Pigs have been domesticated, why do you eat them? Goats have been domesticated, why eat them? Why are cows not domesticated?
Like the guy you quoted said, you have some serious logic issues sir.
I am a meat eater out of convenience and culture. I grew to love it, but I would never eat dog meat. (Too many pets - it would be like eating human to me.) Hell, if I had to work on a farm (raise my own meat) I'd probably be a vegetarian. There are plenty of healthy and tasty alternatives.
That being said, I don't disrespect other cultures for eating dog meat.
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
also, i guess you're completely fine with human consumption too? we're only an animal, one with a conscience. that's the major difference between us and our primape relatives. you're fine with cannibalism since meat is meat?
what argument do you have for that?
cannibalism is only frowned on because somehow man decided that killing each other sint a good idea
Sometimes I wonder about the consistency/texture of human meat. In my imagination, it's not particularly great. Not sure how I imagine the taste. Hm.
ive heard its actually really tasty
and i can see why, take someone whos been living well, doesnt exercise much (like say someone with Artosis' general build)
the whole body would be nice and tender, with such a great diet the meat would have good protein and full of nutrients
I am a vegan, and have been for over a decade. That having said, to the extent that, and in such circumstances as the meat of animals as intelligent as pigs and cows is considered to be an ethical source of food, dog (and horse for that matter) are likewise surely to be considered an ethical source of food.
If someone has a culturally based aversion to the consumption of dog (or horse), that's perfectly fine. They don't have to eat it. But if they express disgust for the choice of others to consume these meats, and judge them for it, while consuming the meats of equally intelligent animals, they're merely hypocrites.
It's an animal like any other. If you're going to deem it that life forms less intelligent than your own race are fair game to be killed and or eaten, then I don't see the significance of the particular species. Ethics of eating any other life is a more interesting question.
If there were an alien species say 5 times more intelligent than humans that discovered earth, they would probably think nothing of killing and eating us, just as we do to the animals here. They wouldn't consider themselves evil( as many movies portray invading aliens), just as we probably wouldn't think we were evil if we colonized a planet we discovered by wiping out a bunch of chimpanzees.
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
well then it seems your opinion is completely irrelevent, and you have no idea how dogs were used in tribes and shit. they were used to help hunt, and what would they hunt? shit like deer and probably horses (eventually led to pig/cow farms once they got their shit together) and dogs were never hunted down and killed to consume, unless they were hungry and chased a pack of wolves or something.
i can't take vegetarians seriously who have no idea of human history and would know that if everyone was a vegatarian, you wouldn't be alive today.
the #1 problem with dog consumption? there is absolutely 0 reason to eat a dog compared to other ways to get food. this is 2012, there was many many many more ways that are also cheaper in order to get food onto someones plate.
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
also, i guess you're completely fine with human consumption too? we're only an animal, one with a conscience. that's the major difference between us and our primape relatives. you're fine with cannibalism since meat is meat?
what argument do you have for that?
Since you seem to have such a great issue with my views that it took you two posts to sum up your anger, I'll just take the liberty to respond to both in one.
#1 Why is my opinion less relevant than yours? Because I don't eat meat in general?
#2 Why do you assume I am not aware as to how dogs were used in human history? In my view of the world a dog doesn't stand higher than a pig. A sheep isn't above a cat. Can I relate more to dogs and cats than to pigs and sheep? Yes, definitely. Does that make them in any way superior or inferior from my personal moral point of view? No. That is my main reasoning why I'm for treating them all the same. And again, for me a person who can eat cows or pigs without a problem but suddenly has moral issues when it comes to a dog, cat or horse is a hypocrit.
Such a persons reasoning to eat one species but not another only shows that he or she refuses to acknowledge that those species are similar. While I do understand that view (how many of us can relate to a pig just like they can to a dog when you see the letter everywhere on a daily basis?), that doesn't make it less speciecist.
For you everything humans used to do for millions of years (e.g. hitting each other on the head to get his wife) is something that we should keep doing without thinking about it?
#3 You accuse me of claiming that everyone should be vegeterian, why exactly?
#4 ... and I just have to throw your quote right back at you, since you seem to have a problem with my view of the world:
the #1 problem with dog consumption? there is absolutely 0 reason to eat a dog compared to other ways to get food. this is 2012, there was many many many more ways that are also cheaper in order to get food onto someones plate.
So what? This is 2012. There is absolutely no reason to eat any animal compared to other ways to get food.* There are many many more ways that are also cheaper in order to get food onto someones plate. Putting a dog above a pig is not an inch better than putting a white person above a black or a christian above a jew.
#5 Personally I have no issue with cannibalism. I do have an issue with living beings harming other living beings though. The human body or mind isn't anything holy or special in my opinion. So, yes, I'd be one of the later guys to call someone a bad person if he decides to eat human meat. Also, obviously, I find it more disgusting than eating an animal, but in general I don't see a real difference. Since I'm assuming you're going to ask me if I'm cool with my mother, father or girlfriend being eaten after their death let me put it this way before it comes to that: I don't care if you want to eat humans, dogs or pigs. I find it all disgusting and would love it if everyone would stop with it as far as for him personally possible. However, I do care if you try to pull any of that shit to people and animals close to me.
(*)I'm aware that this statement isn't 100% accurate and/or that a life without any consumption of meat is exactly easy to pull off. Doesn't change the fact that eating a dog is still easier than what some other human degenerations of taste enjoy when it comes to what we consume.
Edit: After reading this post here:
On April 15 2012 13:07 Yst wrote: If someone has a culturally based aversion to the consumption of dog (or horse), that's perfectly fine. They don't have to eat it. But if they express disgust for the choice of others to consume these meats, and judge them for it, while consuming the meats of equally intelligent animals, they're merely hypocrites.
...I'm not really sure if my #2 should stand as it is anymore. I think I actually DO find the "culturally based aversion" itself already hypocritical, but you got me thinking. Your point is probably ahead of mine there. <3
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
also, i guess you're completely fine with human consumption too? we're only an animal, one with a conscience. that's the major difference between us and our primape relatives. you're fine with cannibalism since meat is meat?
what argument do you have for that?
There's nothing inherently wrong with consumption of human flesh either. I wouldn't care if someone ate me after I was dead.
Would you eat human flesh given it is healthy (fresh)?
Growing up I used to wonder how people would eat cows(beef) and how in some parts people ate snakes. Then I shifted to a predominantly vegetarian school and people would freak out when I got chicken or any sort of meat for lunch lol.
i've eaten before, i don't really see why people find it so repulsive. just another animal, although yea, i can understand the emotional attachement towards domestic animals. but fuck, as long as im not eating YOUR dog or YOUR cat, who cares >_>
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
also, i guess you're completely fine with human consumption too? we're only an animal, one with a conscience. that's the major difference between us and our primape relatives. you're fine with cannibalism since meat is meat?
what argument do you have for that?
There's nothing inherently wrong with consumption of human flesh either. I wouldn't care if someone ate me after I was dead.
Would you eat human flesh given it is healthy (fresh)?
id never eat fresh human flesh
id at least let it rest a couple days for rigor mortis to end
possibly more depending on wether that would actually tenderize the meat
I am a sucker for animals, especially dogs, and i am kinda against eating meat overall but im kind of a hypocrite and like eating stuff like roast beef deli sandwiches and Chicago Chinese food, but i would never stick dog meat in my mouth...
Well...I love meat and eating new food is usually pretty exciting...I wouldn't go out of my way to eat it, but if the opportunity arose, I wouldn't say no to trying it out once.
I also want to note that it's no longer as common as some people think.
On April 15 2012 12:58 Lu_e wrote: No I do not believe eating "Mans best Friend" is ethical.
I'm 100% sure Dogs are more intelligent than chickens, cows and pigs. Dogs can be trained and used as awesome tools/companions.
Can this be said about cow chicken pig? c'mon now....
If we are going to be using intelligence as our point of "NO WE CAN'T EAT THIS!", then let's say we have this situation. There is a person who has gone into a vegetable state and has absolutely no ability to think/"be intelligent", that person's brain is only capable of supporting their body. Would be be alright to eat that person now, since based of the "intelligence" defense, it would be morally permissible then. Similarly (to go back to dogs) what if there was a dog in a similar state, can we eat that dog now since it doesn't have the mental ability to be "man's best friend".
On April 15 2012 12:58 Lu_e wrote: No I do not believe eating "Mans best Friend" is ethical.
I'm 100% sure Dogs are more intelligent than chickens, cows and pigs. Dogs can be trained and used as awesome tools/companions.
Can this be said about cow chicken pig? c'mon now....
If we are going to be using intelligence as our point of "NO WE CAN'T EAT THIS!", then let's say we have this situation. There is a person who has gone into a vegetable state and has absolutely no ability to think/"be intelligent", that person's brain is only capable of supporting their body. Would be be alright to eat that person now, since based of the "intelligence" defense, it would be morally permissible then. Similarly (to go back to dogs) what if there was a dog in a similar state, can we eat that dog now since it doesn't have the mental ability to be "man's best friend".
or what if a cow started talking would we be allowed to eat it then?
On April 15 2012 11:31 r.Evo wrote: As a vegetarian I have the clear view that it's okay to eat dog meat if you eat other meat anyway. Why? Because I can't take people seriously who gladly eat pigs or cows but then suddenly dogs, horses or cats are "too cute" to eat them.
Actually I can't take anyone seriously who eats meat but is unable to kill the animal himself and/or has never seen how it is done live and in person, but that's another topic.
also, i guess you're completely fine with human consumption too? we're only an animal, one with a conscience. that's the major difference between us and our primape relatives. you're fine with cannibalism since meat is meat?
what argument do you have for that?
There's nothing inherently wrong with consumption of human flesh either. I wouldn't care if someone ate me after I was dead.
Would you eat human flesh given it is healthy (fresh)?
No, the thought disgusts me. Unless it was for survival.
This thread is full of many examples of the perfect solution fallacy.
Example: 1. Whats the point of abstaining from eating dog meat if animals such as cows and chickens are still to be killed? 2. Abstaining from eating dogs is ineffective towards animal cruelty.
Another example:
If I donate to charity X, am I a hypocrite for ignoring charity Y?
On April 15 2012 13:37 kidcrash wrote: This thread is full of many examples of the perfect solution fallacy.
Example: 1. Whats the point of abstaining from eating dog meat if animals such as cows and chickens are still to be killed? 2. Abstaining from eating dogs is ineffective towards animal cruelty.
Another example:
If I donate to charity X, am I a hypocrite for ignoring charity Y?
Presumably a person eats a constant amount of meat regardless of the type. Not eating a dog means another pig eaten. Not that I care, I'd eat all of them and enjoy it. I don't discriminate in my genocide, I enjoy variety too much.
I personally strongly disagree with it as my 2 dogs are the only things keeping me going at times in tough times at home; I dont know how i could consider them not as a part of the family; to me they are humans who just can't speak.
On April 15 2012 13:37 kidcrash wrote: This thread is full of many examples of the perfect solution fallacy.
Example: 1. Whats the point of abstaining from eating dog meat if animals such as cows and chickens are still to be killed? 2. Abstaining from eating dogs is ineffective towards animal cruelty.
Another example:
If I donate to charity X, am I a hypocrite for ignoring charity Y?
Presumably a person eats a constant amount of meat regardless of the type. Not eating a dog means another pig eaten. Not that I care, I'd eat all of them and enjoy it. I don't discriminate in my genocide, I enjoy variety too much.
On April 15 2012 12:58 Lu_e wrote: No I do not believe eating "Mans best Friend" is ethical.
I'm 100% sure Dogs are more intelligent than chickens, cows and pigs. Dogs can be trained and used as awesome tools/companions.
Can this be said about cow chicken pig? c'mon now....
Actually, many studies have shown that pigs are smarter than dogs. It's hard to test/rate their intelligence, because there is no standard animal IQ system. Nevertheless, they have been proven to be able to do some amazing tasks (that dogs can't do).
That aside, I don't see how the ability for dogs to be trained makes it unethical to eat their meet. Because they can be "used as awesome tools," we can't eat them? As far as companionship goes...well, different people and cultures have their own preferences.
As part of our culture, you probably know a lot about dogs through common media and real life experiences. Outside of how the media depicts pigs, however, how much do you actually know about the species? You probably think of them as stupid animals, because the only image you can conjure in your head when "pig" is mentioned is a bunch of mud-covered farm animals crammed in a pen, oinking garishly.
I'm not blaming you or anything. Because of my cultural experience, I would never eat dog either. But I don't see anything wrong with other people wanting to eat dog, or any other non-endangered animal, for that matter. As long as the animals are being killed humanely, etc., who am I to judge others' cultural norms?
On April 15 2012 13:37 kidcrash wrote: This thread is full of many examples of the perfect solution fallacy.
Example: 1. Whats the point of abstaining from eating dog meat if animals such as cows and chickens are still to be killed? 2. Abstaining from eating dogs is ineffective towards animal cruelty.
Another example:
If I donate to charity X, am I a hypocrite for ignoring charity Y?
Presumably a person eats a constant amount of meat regardless of the type. Not eating a dog means another pig eaten. Not that I care, I'd eat all of them and enjoy it. I don't discriminate in my genocide, I enjoy variety too much.
Well I may be going out on a limb here, but you (hopefully) discriminate against human meat. There is SOME gray area for everyone here, not all black and white.
This whole thread then becomes a matter of a) where you draw the line personally and b) whether you look down on others for drawing that line elsewhere.
On April 15 2012 08:29 yeaR wrote: I don't mind people eating it, I just don't like the way it's being bred.. etc..
Look up the details of egg-farming (from chickens in particular, though I'm sure the conditions are just as bad for ducks, quails, etc.). The treatment's inhumane. I would say that most animals that provide food for us are treated poorly.
Anyways, lots of people keep fish and birds but have no issue eating salmon/tuna/etc. or chicken/quail/duck/etc., so it's kind of funny that some claim that eating dogs is barbaric or w/e just because they own a dog. I'm kind of ambivalent to it myself, but I wouldn't be horrified by the prospect of eating dogmeat. I'd take it over escargot any day of the week ...
and then theres veal
there stuck in a cage where they literally have no room to move and fed until there jsut the right age then killed
and theres foie gras (gah i know i butchered the spelling) where they put a duck in a box essentially and forcefeed it until its liver is like 90% fat
but dam does it taste good, im pretty sure theres a positive correlation between the inhuman rearing of an animal and how good it tastes
nah but msot meat taste best when its owner got to run around and be more natural
aside from Veal
That's how you spell it...lol. And no, I don't see why people should have a problem with dog meat for any reason unless it was their own personal dog (pet) that was killed for food. Seriously, "domesticated" arguments are crap. You know what basically all livestock (unless you live in like Australia with a good supply of kangaroo) is? Domesticated animals. They've been bred to benefit humans. Whether it's as food, as beasts of burden, or for work, they were bred to better suit our needs. It sure as hell isn't for the betterment of their needs. Side note, the real problem with cruelty to dogs is not that people eat them. It's that people insist on breeding them into ridiculous freak shows completely different from what nature intended. So many popular pure bred dog breeds wind up genetically predisposed to health problems, yet owners insist on buying and furthering the cruelty...makes me face palm when they complain about dogs being used as food.
On April 15 2012 13:37 kidcrash wrote: This thread is full of many examples of the perfect solution fallacy.
Example: 1. Whats the point of abstaining from eating dog meat if animals such as cows and chickens are still to be killed? 2. Abstaining from eating dogs is ineffective towards animal cruelty.
Another example:
If I donate to charity X, am I a hypocrite for ignoring charity Y?
Presumably a person eats a constant amount of meat regardless of the type. Not eating a dog means another pig eaten. Not that I care, I'd eat all of them and enjoy it. I don't discriminate in my genocide, I enjoy variety too much.
I'd like a source for those statistics please.
I don't care enough about the argument to investigate the underlying assumption. Why are you asking me to do research for you?
Some people argue that dogs are cuter, more loyal or smarter then other animals. However there is no rigorous evidence to prove that they are.
Ummm...what? There is tons of animal research on the intelligence and loyal qualities of dogs... What would ever make you think there isn't? Of course the animal that has most closely associated with Humans, and has been bred specifically for numerous tasks either vital at some point to human survival or very important to us for some other reason, has been extensively studied. Like, I mean, Totally...Facepalm. A sub species that we have artificial selected for for thousand of years from the Grey Wolf, to give us such morphological differences as the Chihuhua to the Husky to St. Bernard's to the Grey Wolf itself HAS BEEN STUDIED. Don't just make statements without acutally thinking about it.
Cuter? No, not studied likely. More loyal? Well, that's obvious... name another species that is as social with Humans as dogs? They were the first animal to be domesticated, so it's a no brainer. In fact, it's one of the main reasons we became so successful as a species. Domestication of dogs, cereal grain cultivation, and...probably whatever else is in Guns, Germs, and Steel.
[quoteAlso even if we assume dogs are cuter, more loyal and smarter then other animals it feels like that it is a very arbitrary standard to discriminate over these values. Should we have a measure of cuteness/intelligence/loyalty and consume whatever animal that is lower than an arbitrary limit?[/quote]
We already do that. Pigs might be smarter than dogs, so unless you're going to rid the world of bacon (and good luck with that!) then an arbitrary line isn't going to work.
Also, do you understand what arbitrary means? Why would cuter, loyal, and intelligence be arbitrary qualities? Each one has meaning. Cuteness appeals to emotions, which influence almost all our actions. Loyality is highly valued for hopefully obvious reasons. Unless you think the military wouldn't care if one of their IED sniffing dogs was just like, "meh, i'm gonna go do something else." Loyality breeds trust, a strong relationship, and good teamwork. Intelligence? Really? Well, i guess having a dog incapable of learning would...no, nevermind I don't have an analogy or anything. Of course intelligence isn't arbitrary, it's highly valued for performing tasks, and not only for dogs. Unless that's why Employers don't care if you're smart, or educated, or reliable (loyal).
I'm sorry, I understand your post, and what you meant, but unless you mean, "there is no meaning in life, thus everything is arbitrary," and are an extreme nihilist, in which case I would say, "Ok, i agree", but for all practical purposes, ALL those values have SIGNIFICANCE, are are EXCELLENT means for evaluating something. Whether that be a Spouse, an Employee, or a Dog.
So, nihilistically... doesn't matter what you eat, even human (ya, i said it). Realistically? You better be putting values somewhere. And for survivability and success, those 3 are some pretty good ones.
On April 15 2012 14:02 Benga wrote: i agree that dogs are delicious.yum and if ytou disagree why the hell do you eat other animals? what do you think about eating horses? lol hypocrites
Dogs are skinned and cooked alive, and by eating dog meat you agree with it, oh my!
On April 15 2012 13:37 kidcrash wrote: This thread is full of many examples of the perfect solution fallacy.
Example: 1. Whats the point of abstaining from eating dog meat if animals such as cows and chickens are still to be killed? 2. Abstaining from eating dogs is ineffective towards animal cruelty.
Another example:
If I donate to charity X, am I a hypocrite for ignoring charity Y?
Presumably a person eats a constant amount of meat regardless of the type. Not eating a dog means another pig eaten. Not that I care, I'd eat all of them and enjoy it. I don't discriminate in my genocide, I enjoy variety too much.
I'd like a source for those statistics please.
I don't care enough about the argument to investigate the underlying assumption. Why are you asking me to do research for you?
theres nothing wrong with eating dog meat if its cleaned properly (and is not someone's pet). those dogs are bred to be eaten like pigs and chickens so it doesn't really make sense to treat it differently just because you have or know someone who has a pet dog. some people have pet chicken and pigs too and no one cares about eating pork or chicken
On April 15 2012 13:14 alffla wrote: i've eaten before, i don't really see why people find it so repulsive. just another animal, although yea, i can understand the emotional attachement towards domestic animals. but fuck, as long as im not eating YOUR dog or YOUR cat, who cares >_>
I agree that this is the logical approach, but habit and irrational feelings rule us all. Would you eat human meat from a human who died a natural death and whose meat would otherwise be burned of buried? I see no good reason not to (except if it tastes bad or is unhealthy), but I wouldn't do it because it would feel weird.
On April 15 2012 08:26 gnr9292 wrote: The dog is also killed humanely.
How is killing ever humane? I never understood that. I don't like how people dont believe eating dogs is right, then eat other meat. Either eat animals or don't, mixed up feelings inbetween just contradict yourself.
On April 15 2012 08:26 gnr9292 wrote: The dog is also killed humanely.
How is killing ever humane? I never understood that. I don't like how people dont believe eating dogs is right, then eat other meat. Either eat animals or don't, mixed up feelings inbetween just contradict yourself.
I have to agree i hate it when someone says its totally clear why they are not eating dog-meat but cant really give good reasons why its ok to eat other meat then :/
On April 15 2012 08:26 gnr9292 wrote: The dog is also killed humanely.
How is killing ever humane? I never understood that. I don't like how people dont believe eating dogs is right, then eat other meat. Either eat animals or don't, mixed up feelings inbetween just contradict yourself.
I have to agree i hate it when someone says its totally clear why they not eat dog-meat but cant really give good reasons why its ok to eat other meat then :/
This is a logical fallacy called the perfect solution fallacy that I explained on the prior page.
On April 15 2012 13:37 kidcrash wrote: This thread is full of many examples of the perfect solution fallacy.
Example: 1. Whats the point of abstaining from eating dog meat if animals such as cows and chickens are still to be killed? 2. Abstaining from eating dogs is ineffective towards animal cruelty.
Another example:
If I donate to charity X, am I a hypocrite for ignoring charity Y?
Presumably a person eats a constant amount of meat regardless of the type. Not eating a dog means another pig eaten. Not that I care, I'd eat all of them and enjoy it. I don't discriminate in my genocide, I enjoy variety too much.
I'd like a source for those statistics please.
I don't care enough about the argument to investigate the underlying assumption. Why are you asking me to do research for you?
Because you're wrong.
Wrong in contributing a relevant hypothetical predicate upon an assumption presented as neither right or wrong? Alright, I apologize.
On April 15 2012 14:07 ZidaneTribal wrote: theres nothing wrong with eating dog meat if its cleaned properly (and is not someone's pet). those dogs are bred to be eaten like pigs and chickens so it doesn't really make sense to treat it differently just because you have or know someone who has a pet dog. some people have pet chicken and pigs too and no one cares about eating pork or chicken
yeah definitely swine in swine sandwiches are usually fully cooked or cured and you could do the same with dog, too
On April 15 2012 08:26 gnr9292 wrote: The dog is also killed humanely.
How is killing ever humane? I never understood that. I don't like how people dont believe eating dogs is right, then eat other meat. Either eat animals or don't, mixed up feelings inbetween just contradict yourself.
I have to agree i hate it when someone says its totally clear why they not eat dog-meat but cant really give good reasons why its ok to eat other meat then :/
This is a logical fallacy called the perfect solution fallacy that I explained on the prior page.
Umm, you are aware that dogs a skinned and cooked alive, never heard of a cow being skinned and cooked alive, these are the facts.
Assuming all animals are killed in the same ways then there is no difference. But the truth of the matter is humans only need fish meat, the other nutrients can be attained from greens.
On April 15 2012 13:14 alffla wrote: i've eaten before, i don't really see why people find it so repulsive. just another animal, although yea, i can understand the emotional attachement towards domestic animals. but fuck, as long as im not eating YOUR dog or YOUR cat, who cares >_>
I agree that this is the logical approach, but habit and irrational feelings rule us all. Would you eat human meat from a human who died a natural death and whose meat would otherwise be burned of buried? I see no good reason not to (except if it tastes bad or is unhealthy), but I wouldn't do it because it would feel weird.
yeah, i think maybe there's something biologically programmed in our brains to not easily bring oneself to eat your own species though i guess? i think even in the animal world there aren't that many animals that eat their own kind..
really not sure about that, but just thinking about bringing some chopped off human thigh meat towards my face makes me cringe.
On April 15 2012 08:26 gnr9292 wrote: The dog is also killed humanely.
How is killing ever humane? I never understood that. I don't like how people dont believe eating dogs is right, then eat other meat. Either eat animals or don't, mixed up feelings inbetween just contradict yourself.
I have to agree i hate it when someone says its totally clear why they not eat dog-meat but cant really give good reasons why its ok to eat other meat then :/
This is a logical fallacy called the perfect solution fallacy that I explained on the prior page.
Well so you say improvement happens in steps. And that we will see the wrong in eating any meat maybe in some generation and its fine that we dont eat dog, it is just the first step on the logical evolution?
Uhh there's not a lot if any that eat horse meat in the us. But here's my thing. My cow doesn't learn the tricks that I try to teach it. My chickens don't play fetch with me in the backyard, and my pigs sure as hell don't greet me at the door when I get home from work. Dogs are domesticated and I would never in a million years eat dog meat.
Not something I would ever do, but I'm not going to stop anyone else from doing it, just like I love horse meat but many places around here refuse to sell it. I would probably try human meat if it was for sale.
On April 15 2012 14:18 Zach426 wrote: Uhh there's not a lot if any that eat horse meat in the us. But here's my thing. My cow doesn't learn the tricks that I try to teach it. My chickens don't play fetch with me in the backyard, and my pigs sure as hell don't greet me at the door when I get home from work. Dogs are domesticated and I would never in a million years eat dog meat.
Actually pigs are capable of deeper emotional attachments then dogs and are more intelligent so they'd definitely be able to learn 'tricks' that you want to teach your pet pig if you ever owned one.
Many of you may know about my infamous (P)Storkism trip to korea in december (see my other blogs), I also wanted to share this little story:
When I was riding the subway, I saw a tourist information in it where interesting places on the route were marked and a description in english was added. So when I came to Moran station, I saw that there was a market right here so I decided to take a look, maybe there's something interesting for tourists if its on a map like that.
When I finally reached the place I was very disappointed. There were no real interesting places or markets at all, rather farmers selling their own stuff or cheap chinese 1 dollar per piece stuff. nevertheless I decided to take walk around the parameter when I suddendly came to a dirty road without concrete at the other side of the place. I instantly smelled meat and I knew that this wasn't something regular i already know. So I saw these cages with dogs, goats and other animals. Like fried dogs were also on the dirty cages and this place seemed so different from the korea I know. Everything was really messy, it smelled, but I'm also the type of guy to respect local things so I wasn't that horrified by it.
To be honest, I was wearing expensive clothes, I was a foreigner, it wasn't something which I should see as a tourist at all, this wasn't the place were I should be. The shops seemed to be empty and thats when I decided to take a photo - bad mistake!
~1700 won per 100g , there's a goat on the left side I think
Instantly some guy from behind kinda assaulted me, pushed and punched me. I shouted to him in german that he will see an early grave if he goes on with that & pushed him away....it helped and he kinda left. I walked down and saw everything but people watched me carefully, I felt that they were pretty hostile towards me and it was a good idea to just go away...
To be honest, I have no real opinion on this. I like meat (of course not of dogs), but I eat vegetarian stuff most of the time. European people were really disgusted by my story but I also want to mention that only older people seem to eat that kind of meat and youngers don't, also I think that a foreigner should respect local surroundings instead of trashing them... I had no idea that this market is so infamous - thanks to google I know it now!
I don't eat any meat. Animals are not as smart as humans, but i wouldn't eat a human who was shown to have extremely little brain activity/intelligence either. Many animals need to hunt and eat meat to survive, that might of been true of humans in the past but now that we have the means and choice to choose not to kill other things for food we might as well not do it.
On April 15 2012 13:14 alffla wrote: i've eaten before, i don't really see why people find it so repulsive. just another animal, although yea, i can understand the emotional attachement towards domestic animals. but fuck, as long as im not eating YOUR dog or YOUR cat, who cares >_>
I agree that this is the logical approach, but habit and irrational feelings rule us all. Would you eat human meat from a human who died a natural death and whose meat would otherwise be burned of buried? I see no good reason not to (except if it tastes bad or is unhealthy), but I wouldn't do it because it would feel weird.
yeah, i think maybe there's something biologically programmed in our brains to not easily bring oneself to eat your own species though i guess? i think even in the animal world there aren't that many animals that eat their own kind..
really not sure about that, but just thinking about bringing some chopped off human thigh meat towards my face makes me cringe.
Maybe because you would have to butcher the body for the meat? That would be gruesome as fuck. People are also a "elevated" animal in many peoples minds. You wouldn't kill a person to eat them when there is a dog or cat to eat because a person is more important.
On April 15 2012 14:48 Twelve12 wrote: I don't eat any meat. Animals are not as smart as humans, but i wouldn't eat a human who was shown to have extremely little brain activity/intelligence either. Many animals need to hunt and eat meat to survive, that might of been true of humans in the past but now that we have the means and choice to choose not to kill other things for food we might as well not do it.
But I relish in it. I choose to embrace my primal nature. There's nothing quite like having the proper anatomical knowledge to pick the flesh of a chicken cadaver off its bones with staggering efficiency, and then looking down at my plate to bear witness upon the greatest avian holocaust since last tuesday's 35 cent wing night at roosters.
On April 15 2012 14:48 Twelve12 wrote: I don't eat any meat. Animals are not as smart as humans, but i wouldn't eat a human who was shown to have extremely little brain activity/intelligence either. Many animals need to hunt and eat meat to survive, that might of been true of humans in the past but now that we have the means and choice to choose not to kill other things for food we might as well not do it.
But I relish in it. I choose to embrace my primal nature. There's nothing quite like having the proper anatomical knowledge to pick the flesh of a chicken cadaver off its bones with staggering efficiency, and then looking down at my plate to bear witness upon the greatest avian holocaust since last tuesday's 35 cent wing night at roosters.
I understand i'm probably going to be outnumbered by people who aren't vegetarian, but my argument was essentially that i don't make a judgement on whether or not to kill and eat something based on how smart it is. I assume you wouldn't feel the same way about picking the flesh off a retarded person or perhaps a very young child who doesn't the same intellectual capacity as an adult yet. Using the example of eating people probably seems like an extreme example, but i'm trying to use examples of things you wouldn't do (i'd hope) to maybe give you an insight through the use of that analogy into where my position comes from.
Unless you are strictly a vegetarian, you have no ethical viewpoint on the consumption of any kind of meat for it is hypocritical. Meat is meat whether it is from a chicken, dog, or even a monkey. Being cute and furry doesn't excuse dogs from the food chain.
On April 15 2012 14:18 Zach426 wrote: Uhh there's not a lot if any that eat horse meat in the us. But here's my thing. My cow doesn't learn the tricks that I try to teach it. My chickens don't play fetch with me in the backyard, and my pigs sure as hell don't greet me at the door when I get home from work. Dogs are domesticated and I would never in a million years eat dog meat.
Actually pigs are capable of deeper emotional attachments then dogs and are more intelligent so they'd definitely be able to learn 'tricks' that you want to teach your pet pig if you ever owned one.
Thank you mr. pig expert, I'm glad you took the time out of your busy day to grace me with your expertise on the TL forums. I still love bacon and more importantly pork chops.
On April 15 2012 14:18 Zach426 wrote: Uhh there's not a lot if any that eat horse meat in the us. But here's my thing. My cow doesn't learn the tricks that I try to teach it. My chickens don't play fetch with me in the backyard, and my pigs sure as hell don't greet me at the door when I get home from work. Dogs are domesticated and I would never in a million years eat dog meat.
Actually pigs are capable of deeper emotional attachments then dogs and are more intelligent so they'd definitely be able to learn 'tricks' that you want to teach your pet pig if you ever owned one.
Thank you mr. pig expert, I'm glad you took the time out of your busy day to grace me with your expertise on the TL forums. I still love bacon and more importantly pork chops.
BLASPHEMY! Bacon is way better and more important than simple pork chops.
On April 15 2012 15:04 Abort Retry Fail wrote: If you're ok with eating beef or pork or chicken, I see no reasong why dogs are much different
Because most people don't consider cows, pigs, or chickens as pets.
So.. since YOU consider only dogs from that list as pets means that an entire culture of people should conform to your standards and see it that eating dogs is wrong?
I've had dog meat before and it was rather good. I don't find it morally disturbing or anything as I've eaten turkey before and in Asia, turkey is a pretty rare animal that's kept in zoos so... xD It's all about perspective!
On April 15 2012 14:48 Twelve12 wrote: I don't eat any meat. Animals are not as smart as humans, but i wouldn't eat a human who was shown to have extremely little brain activity/intelligence either. Many animals need to hunt and eat meat to survive, that might of been true of humans in the past but now that we have the means and choice to choose not to kill other things for food we might as well not do it.
But I relish in it. I choose to embrace my primal nature. There's nothing quite like having the proper anatomical knowledge to pick the flesh of a chicken cadaver off its bones with staggering efficiency, and then looking down at my plate to bear witness upon the greatest avian holocaust since last tuesday's 35 cent wing night at roosters.
I understand i'm probably going to be outnumbered by people who aren't vegetarian, but my argument was essentially that i don't make a judgement on whether or not to kill and eat something based on how smart it is. I assume you wouldn't feel the same way about picking the flesh off a retarded person or perhaps a very young child who doesn't the same intellectual capacity as an adult yet. Using the example of eating people probably seems like an extreme example, but i'm trying to use examples of things you wouldn't do (i'd hope) to maybe give you an insight through the use of that analogy into where my position comes from.
I don't judge whether to eat something based off of its intelligence either. That whole debate is completely alien to me and I don't understand it.
Edit: I do not see you as being in the minority. Most of the meat eaters will think and argue on your terms to make feeble attempts at defending their habits. The discussion regarding intelligence is an example of this. You are in the majority in that you assume there to be a moral dilemma in the first place.
On April 15 2012 14:18 Zach426 wrote: Uhh there's not a lot if any that eat horse meat in the us. But here's my thing. My cow doesn't learn the tricks that I try to teach it. My chickens don't play fetch with me in the backyard, and my pigs sure as hell don't greet me at the door when I get home from work. Dogs are domesticated and I would never in a million years eat dog meat.
Actually pigs are capable of deeper emotional attachments then dogs and are more intelligent so they'd definitely be able to learn 'tricks' that you want to teach your pet pig if you ever owned one.
Thank you mr. pig expert, I'm glad you took the time out of your busy day to grace me with your expertise on the TL forums. I still love bacon and more importantly pork chops.
BLASPHEMY! Bacon is way better and more important than simple pork chops.
Maybe simple pork chops...but not GREAT pork chops!
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.
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.
His point is that if you eat other animals, why would you be all worked up if the animal is a dog rather than a cow or a pig. If you dislike eating dog or cat just because you see them alive, you should really start reconsidering your stance on meat altogether.
Personally I am not against the eating of dogs or cats because doing so would be a hypocritical stance after over 20 years of consuming beef, meat and what not. For the record, I would eat insects as well. If it tastes good and isn't outright poisonous, I will eat it.
if you are against eating dog meat, u better be a vegetarian. if you are eating other meat, you are just as bad, dun be bias toward the animal u put in your mouth. u have no right to advocate against eating dog meat if u are eating other meat. same goes to pple who talks about shark fins
I don't see the purpose in it, other than being a delicacy. They just seem horribly inefficient as farm animals. You have to feed them food for the little amount of meat they produce (per $ food fed). Their manure is harmful to human health, there is no demand for their fur and skin, nor do they produce dairy. Their involvement in farms typically consists of hunting, guarding, herding, etc... tasks that doesn't require breeding them in large numbers.
I wouldn't do it, but I don't see the problem with it. If you eat meat from any animal, then there should be no issue. I do however take issue with the eating of certain "delicacies" in the form of rare animals caught in the wild. Granted, this is due to a different reason and not because I identify with them on some emotional level.
I do not claim to be a moral authority but for me there is one distinction that pulls me emotionally. This distinction is between animals that we take things from (cows, chicken, etc) and animals who give us things (cats, dogs, etc). I know it could very well be entirely perception but there you have it.
Don't really see the issue. Dogs are vastly overrated anyway. Most people that cringe at the thought of eating dog-meat have no problem eating bacon, even though pigs are quite a bit smarter then your average dog and are just as capable of forming social bonds with humans.
Us Americans take care of the animals we eat. We put our cows, pigs, and chickens in loving and caring environments so that they produce the best meat.
There is no difference between dog meat and pork or poultry (except taste maybe). If you think eating dog meat is "wrong" you shouldn´t eat meat at all.
Don't see any sort of moral problem here. There is no reason to value animals' life more than people's interest in meat consumption, especially if the animals are farmed for the sole reason of serving the meat industry. Using carnivores as farm animals is very ineffective though, so they better serve as high priced delicacies.
Pigs, cows, and chickens provide more food per maintenance than dogs, so it makes sense that they became the "normal" meats for western society (numbers). If there was some sort of alternate universe where dogs produced more meat than cows, I bet much less people would have less of a problem with dog meat and McDonalds would be serving dog patties since it would be cheaper than cow meat. I think the issue comes from the fact that most humans naturally reject anything that is outside their comfort zone. Combine that with the fact that the human subconscious thinks about something that once lived when a human eats meat and this whole debate pops up.
as Filipino, I have no idea if I've ate dog or not.. fucking canteens might be serving dog meat instead of goat meat.. (which is delicious by the way).
Also, I don't care if you eat dog but I ain't eating any unless it's the apocalypse.
I love animals but I do also eat meat. I probably would not have it in me to kill my own food with my bare hands, but I would probably eat dog if I needed to. We domesticated dogs to help us hunt tens of thousands of years ago, so for our history dogs have been viewed as companions for the most part. Cows on the other hand were viewed as food, and why wouldn't they be? They're large, have a lot of meat, and their skin and fat can be used for various purposes. In the current age, dogs are a lot more profitable to sell as pets rather than harvest for meat.
I have begun to wean myself off of eating steak because 1) its generally fattier and 2) cows produce a lot of methane which is very harmful for the ozone. U.S. factory farms tend to also not keep their animals in very good conditions. There are also current problems with the way we harvest fish so I'm trying to be more responsible on what fish I eat too. I do have some problems with the way chickens are treated but I have accepted it because they are bred mainly for consumption.
I think we had this discussion before with horse meat before. But I think there are more important factors to consider than emotional attachment to potential food sources.
Dogs aren't really "natural" prey for humans, i think that's a factor too. Just like eating wolf or lion seems a bit off bunnies are really cute and pets too but i think most humans wouldn't feel uncomfortable eating those, it might just be me though and i rationally justify why eating dog would be so horrible so i won't judge.
It's so sad that people eat meat so they, out of guilt, say it's ok to eat dog, knowing if they don't it will flaw the philosophy of eating meat.
Animals dont need to died so you can eat meat. They just dont! Bend down rip som grass from the floor and shove it in your mouth! You'll survive!
No one will even begin to logically debate with thm selves whether it's wrong or not, because they subconsciously know they wouldnt be able to stop or even consider it.
Try me. I guarntee I can slam ANY argumetn against not eating meat. It's like trying to prove me guilty of murder , Im not afraid because Im innocent, so theres nothing u can possibly say because your wrong.
it's not about the taste; it's mostly a moral issue. if humans have different worths based on whatever subjective reason someone can come up, so should the animals have different values asigned to them. it's basic logic, really, but since people nowadays do things just because they can, the world is what it is.
One of the scariest things is that people are willing to say theyd eat dog meat because they have to buy the whole package of eating meat. If you enjoy eating meat and feel guilty of eating dog. Fine! Thats your natural feelings, dont be afraid of looking like a hypocrite. Instead you make a horrible decsion about your self because of some b.s. And you dont even know your doing it? So sad. So many animals die. Theres no excuse, none at all.
On April 15 2012 18:45 FrodoAndTheSlobStix wrote: It's so sad that people eat meat so they, out of guilt, say it's ok to eat dog, knowing if they don't it will flaw the philosophy of eating meat.
Animals dont need to died so you can eat meat. They just dont! Bend down rip som grass from the floor and shove it in your mouth! You'll survive!
No one will even begin to logically debate with thm selves whether it's wrong or not, because they subconsciously know they wouldnt be able to stop or even consider it.
Try me. I guarntee I can slam ANY argumetn against not eating meat. It's like trying to prove me guilty of murder , Im not afraid because Im innocent, so theres nothing u can possibly say because your wrong.
You think people here are saying it's ok out of guilt? You are projecting your own perspective onto everyone else. I have ZERO guilt in eating meat. I highly ENJOY it. I also have no issue with others eating dog. I can say it's because there's no difference between animals, as the only difference is built into the culture. That doesn't change the fact that I don't care and feel zero guilt about it though.
^Other people. I shoulda have posted specific posts. And I was wrong about handling any argument because that's just a simple disagreement that would get no where online >< But if theres a hole the dam shall fall.
@acerockolla I ask just this question though. If you can survive with out eating meat then how do you justify the detah of animals? I have to go so I cant respond so Ill throw in some counter arguments hoping I land on one.
People have no right to tell other people what to do. A: They do when your involved with taking ANOTHERS life for your self.
And if you just simply dont give a shit then I dont know,
The other argument is that plants are life too. Heres the magic part. They have no nervous system, or logical pain as far as we can tell and they.............GROW BACK!!! (if cut right). Fruits rot within days I mean come on, just fucken come one!! Get it! Just get it! It's not justifiable and as long as you people complain about corruption and the horrible state of the world, realize your the problem!! Your part of the problem!! You fucken athiests!! You danm fucken athiests!!!
Unless you bred whatever you're eating yourself, you cannot guarantee that the animal was treated humanely, especially not if you bought it at a supermarket.
I have to go just keep that argument in mind and please give it some thought tonight. Living things die and in more horrible way then you can imagine Please stop eatin gmeat. I beg, please
On April 15 2012 18:59 FrodoAndTheSlobStix wrote: @acerockolla I ask just this question though. If you can survive with out eating meat then how do you justify the detah of animals? I have to go so I cant respond so Ill throw in some counter arguments hoping I land on one.
People have no right to tell other people what to do. A: They do when your involved with taking ANOTHERS life for your self.
And if you just simply dont give a shit then I dont know,
You are equating humans with animals. You have the right to feel that way, but you're definitely in the minority (throughout the world). A fellow human being can convey that they do not wish to be eaten, whereas an animal cannot think and prepare for the future (other than instinctually). Whether you're ultra religious or whatever, here's the deal... nature is always right. If you think eating animals is fundamentally wrong because one might be able to subsist otherwise, what do you think about nature? Something that you are guarding so preciously, while you are also saying is completely wrong... What's the deal here? Either you exist on this planet or your don't. You can pretend that the world is peaches and cream, but the reality is we all die and humans > animals.
Also, please don't equate me with those that would condone dog fighting or whatever else out there exists. I'm speaking purely about eating animals. Not abusing them for fun.
On April 15 2012 16:29 Velocirapture wrote: I do not claim to be a moral authority but for me there is one distinction that pulls me emotionally. This distinction is between animals that we take things from (cows, chicken, etc) and animals who give us things (cats, dogs, etc). I know it could very well be entirely perception but there you have it.
Well this is it for me. Cows, Chicken and Sheeps and so on are mostly animals, which we use to get us a better life with the products of them (milk, eggs, etc.) It's like they almost can´t feel human on an emotional area like dogs can. Dogs are so much more worth I'd say because they can do some much for humans in way Cow and chicken can't. Have you ever seen a Cow helping a disabled person to get through his life better? I don't think so and if you´ve seen something like that I totally want to have a source. Dogs can help disabled persons, while many other animals can't.You don´t even have to speak to them all of the time if you want something, since it is almost like they can read your mind. Moreover, dogs can be real friends. I´ve never ever seen someone saying a cow is his friend. For me I'd say it´s probably a emotional reaction to say no to this, but I think dogs can do so much more in a way farm animal can´t. Imagine you´re a dog owner and you see this post for me the reaction was immediately no because I love my dog and in general almost all dogs I´ve seen so far are nice and friendly it's mostly the people, who make dogs terrifying by hitting them and not treating them properly.
On April 15 2012 18:50 VIPIrony wrote: If it's an animal bred for eating, I'm fine with it. If it's an animal grown in an environment like a pet. I am not fine with it.
Love animals, love meat.
Well, there are to many dogs you exclude with this post what is with the ones that are left alone? There are so many people, who think it's okay to leave puppies alone and so the time goes on and some of the puppies survive some die and now there are additional dogs who weren't bred for anything what are you going to do with them?
Would eat it if it's good. Can see why dog owners wouldn't though, I have a pet tortoise and wouldn't eat turtle soup or something like that; would be hard not to visualize your pet lying on the plate.
But humans have the power to choose. We actually can see negative and remove it from the universe!! Humans have so much potentiol. The ability to remove the flaws and negative sides of the universe, we have the power! Not stars, not water but us! And you say nature is always right, we are nature, we are the most advanced knowledge to our knowledge. If we were to remove killing and eating of other organisms and in a crazy sense turn lions and other meat eating animals to grass fed, what would be the downside? "It's not nature you messed up...you took away" The bad side of things. Survival of the fittest for 4 billions years or the way of peace and harmony and no lesser being disreguarded. Of course there are ways we still cant controll it but we can in our capable material world. It's purpose, Humans...................................So much Potentiol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
If dogs weren't domesticated and viewed in society as lovable pets, nobody would care in the slightest that they were eaten. So if we can 'mass produce' and slaughter huge varieties of farm animals, then it would be hypocritical to say dogs aren't allowed.
On April 15 2012 18:50 VIPIrony wrote: If it's an animal bred for eating, I'm fine with it. If it's an animal grown in an environment like a pet. I am not fine with it.
Love animals, love meat.
Well, there are to many dogs you exclude with this post what is with the ones that are left alone? There are so many people, who think it's okay to leave puppies alone and so the time goes on and some of the puppies survive some die and now there are additional dogs who weren't bred for anything what are you going to do with them?
Who cares? Are you going to save them all? There are actual dog farms in Korea and other places that eat dog. The idea that people are kidnapping dogs from the streets is probably perpetuated by those wish to propogate their own views.
I love pigs myself, much more than dogs. But I would never expect people to stop eating pigs and I don't really care if people eat dogs either. Someone in this thread said that people treat their pets like human beings, and that is the fucking problem.
On April 15 2012 18:50 VIPIrony wrote: If it's an animal bred for eating, I'm fine with it. If it's an animal grown in an environment like a pet. I am not fine with it.
Love animals, love meat.
Well, there are to many dogs you exclude with this post what is with the ones that are left alone? There are so many people, who think it's okay to leave puppies alone and so the time goes on and some of the puppies survive some die and now there are additional dogs who weren't bred for anything what are you going to do with them?
Who cares? Are you going to save them all? There are actual dog farms in Korea and other places that eat dog. The idea that people are kidnapping dogs from the streets is probably perpetuated by those wish to propogate their own views.
Most countries have lots of stray dogs, and some of them are 'kidnapped' not to be eaten by people by to be fed on Zoo Animals like crocs.
On April 15 2012 19:19 FrodoAndTheSlobStix wrote: @acerokorolla.
But humans have the power to choose. We actually can see negative and remove it from the universe!! Humans have so much potentiol. The ability to remove the flaws and negative sides of the universe, we have the power! Not stars, not water but us! And you say nature is always right, we are nature, we are the most advanced knowledge to our knowledge. If we were to remove killing and eating of other organisms and in a crazy sense turn lions and other meat eating animals to grass fed, what would be the downside? "It's not nature you messed up...you took away" The bad side of things. Survival of the fittest for 4 billions years or the way of peace and harmony and no lesser being disreguarded. Of course there are ways we still cant controll it but we can in our capable material world. It's purpose, Humans...................................So much Potentiol!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
See negative and remove it from the universe? I understand and completely agree that humans have the potential for so much good. However, that's not the necessarily the case. Also, whether or not we eat animals, how do we stop other animals from eating each other? Don't get me wrong, I see where you are coming from. I understand that you wish to stop the death of animals that could perhaps live otherwise. When I see a cute puppy, I want nothing more to pet it, feed it, and love it. This would be the distinction between animals raised as pets or food, which could be the same animal in two difference places.
Our differences stem from fundamentals differences in ontology. I say nature is the dominant force throughout the universe, whereas you think it's humans. If we weren't supposed to be eating animals, then I feel as though they should be arguing with me on this forum. Also, you obviously do not understand ecology and what niches animals and other organisms fit into. Not everyone can be a peace loving plant eater. Things exist in nature because that's the only way things can exist. If there was another way, it would happen.
^Make it happen.....We are the missing link in the evolution of the universe and with time we will do so. But not any time soon. I dont know how long it will be, but eventually it will go that way.
Love my dogs, but if I don't feel remorse for eating animals neither should anyone else for eating the particular type of animal I happen to like. I think it can be a frightening concept for some because the first thought to the question is "Well, what if they ate my dog? How would I feel?" But no one is going to eat your dog, just like no one is going to sneak onto a farm and eat some guy's cow.
On April 15 2012 18:50 VIPIrony wrote: If it's an animal bred for eating, I'm fine with it. If it's an animal grown in an environment like a pet. I am not fine with it.
Love animals, love meat.
Well, there are to many dogs you exclude with this post what is with the ones that are left alone? There are so many people, who think it's okay to leave puppies alone and so the time goes on and some of the puppies survive some die and now there are additional dogs who weren't bred for anything what are you going to do with them?
Who cares? Are you going to save them all? There are actual dog farms in Korea and other places that eat dog. The idea that people are kidnapping dogs from the streets is probably perpetuated by those wish to propogate their own views.
Most countries have lots of stray dogs, and some of them are 'kidnapped' not to be eaten by people by to be fed on Zoo Animals like crocs.
Have you ever been in a country with stray dog problems? There was a big issue in Iraq in regards to stray dogs. These dogs.. well, they acted like dogs. They formed packs and acted like one might expect them to act. I don't know if that was the issue in whatever country you are imagining, but stray dogs in shitty countries aren't the same stray dogs you might find in the first world.
On April 15 2012 18:50 VIPIrony wrote: If it's an animal bred for eating, I'm fine with it. If it's an animal grown in an environment like a pet. I am not fine with it.
Love animals, love meat.
Well, there are to many dogs you exclude with this post what is with the ones that are left alone? There are so many people, who think it's okay to leave puppies alone and so the time goes on and some of the puppies survive some die and now there are additional dogs who weren't bred for anything what are you going to do with them?
Who cares? Are you going to save them all? There are actual dog farms in Korea and other places that eat dog. The idea that people are kidnapping dogs from the streets is probably perpetuated by those wish to propogate their own views.
Most countries have lots of stray dogs, and some of them are 'kidnapped' not to be eaten by people by to be fed on Zoo Animals like crocs.
Have you ever been in a country with stray dog problems? There was a big issue in Iraq in regards to stray dogs. These dogs.. well, they acted like dogs. They formed packs and acted like one might expect them to act. I don't know if that was the issue in whatever country you are imagining, but stray dogs in shitty countries aren't the same stray dogs you might find in the first world.
I actually live in a country with stray dog problems (Not in NK). We have dog pounds that if the captured dogs aren't sought after in a day or 2, they are immediately delivered to Zoos to be Animal Food. Chickens are expensive.
I don't know if dogs are bred to be eaten, but if that's true then that's fucking disgusting. Why breed an intelligent animal that is very social with humans just to eat it? SPECIALLY when there is other things to eat? by that I mean other meat.
On April 15 2012 18:50 VIPIrony wrote: If it's an animal bred for eating, I'm fine with it. If it's an animal grown in an environment like a pet. I am not fine with it.
Love animals, love meat.
Well, there are to many dogs you exclude with this post what is with the ones that are left alone? There are so many people, who think it's okay to leave puppies alone and so the time goes on and some of the puppies survive some die and now there are additional dogs who weren't bred for anything what are you going to do with them?
Who cares? Are you going to save them all? There are actual dog farms in Korea and other places that eat dog. The idea that people are kidnapping dogs from the streets is probably perpetuated by those wish to propogate their own views.
Most countries have lots of stray dogs, and some of them are 'kidnapped' not to be eaten by people by to be fed on Zoo Animals like crocs.
Have you ever been in a country with stray dog problems? There was a big issue in Iraq in regards to stray dogs. These dogs.. well, they acted like dogs. They formed packs and acted like one might expect them to act. I don't know if that was the issue in whatever country you are imagining, but stray dogs in shitty countries aren't the same stray dogs you might find in the first world.
I actually live in a country with stray dog problems (Not in NK). We have dog pounds that if the captured dogs aren't sought after in a day or 2, they are immediately delivered to Zoos to be Animal Food. Chickens are expensive.
Well, it appears to me that the stray dog problem in your area is not so bad and is being dealt with rather pragmatically. I live in the US, where if dogs aren't sought after, they are euthanized. Being fed to the animals at the zoo seems like a good idea. If no one is going to care for them, they can either attack humans, die for no reason, or be food for other animals. I have watched stray dogs gather in packs and attack people, forcing them to open fire with automatic rifles. Stray dogs are animals. I understand the care and feelings for dogs raised as pets, but actual stray dogs are not animals to be adopted.
Replace dog with wolf and it still isn't really okay for most people. The thing about meat is that other than sealife, we dont feed on predators. Pretty much anything that eats red meat we tend not to eat. It doesn't have to do with domestication or anything.
On April 15 2012 19:52 Thylacine wrote: I don't know if dogs are bred to be eaten, but if that's true then that's fucking disgusting. Why breed an intelligent animal that is very social with humans just to eat it? SPECIALLY when there is other things to eat? by that I mean other meat.
The dogs that are bred to be eaten are not very social with humans. This is what I'm trying to convey. The dog you know and love is a dog that you basically kidnapped from its birth and taught it to love and obey you. The dogs bred on farms are simply that, dogs left to their own devices until they are slaughtered for their meat. Pigs > dogs in many regards when it comes to pets, but you eat pigs and pet dogs.. I feel as though cultural relativism is a great concept, especially when it comes to animals. If this were a discussion about female genital circumcission, I'd be judging along with you, but it's an animal that you have chosen to value over some equivalent other animal.
On April 15 2012 19:55 Dr_Strange wrote: Replace dog with wolf and it still isn't really okay for most people. The thing about meat is that other than sealife, we dont feed on predators. Pretty much anything that eats red meat we tend not to eat. It doesn't have to do with domestication or anything.
I agree with this argument for the most part, but people don't argue this. They argue ethnocentric perspectives where the dog is more on the level of humans. I don't eat dog and never will. It'd just be nice if people could step outside of their own little bubble of a life for an instant. As I've said already, perhaps one billion Hindus find cows sacred, yet many of us chow down on delicious beef. Animals are animals. Pets are pets. Not every animal that happens to be the same type of your pet is a pet.
On April 15 2012 19:52 Thylacine wrote: I don't know if dogs are bred to be eaten, but if that's true then that's fucking disgusting. Why breed an intelligent animal that is very social with humans just to eat it? SPECIALLY when there is other things to eat? by that I mean other meat.
It's just as disgusting as breeding pigs to be eaten. I would personally rather have a pig as a pet because they are so playful, intelligent and loyal. EXACTLY like dogs. Why eat pigs when we can eat dogs? Other than the fact that the quality of meat is different, there is no moral reason to not eat dogs instead.
On April 15 2012 18:45 FrodoAndTheSlobStix wrote: It's so sad that people eat meat so they, out of guilt, say it's ok to eat dog, knowing if they don't it will flaw the philosophy of eating meat.
Animals dont need to died so you can eat meat. They just dont! Bend down rip som grass from the floor and shove it in your mouth! You'll survive!
No one will even begin to logically debate with thm selves whether it's wrong or not, because they subconsciously know they wouldnt be able to stop or even consider it.
Try me. I guarntee I can slam ANY argumetn against not eating meat. It's like trying to prove me guilty of murder , Im not afraid because Im innocent, so theres nothing u can possibly say because your wrong.
I love the open mindedness here.
People have different moral values, and just because someone doesn't agree with your personal values doesn't make them automatically wrong.
To me its the same debate that most people have against hunting, yet they eat meat.
I dont see the difference between eating COW, PIG or DOG. In many countries dogs are not used as pets at all, hell i got friends from places in Africa that view dogs as "evil" because their only contact with them is soldiers and mercenaries using them as intimidation tools/weapons.
To me, this is mainly a cultural thing. When you keep dogs as pets, sometimes you begin to see them as part of the family and not simply an animal. But if you look at it objectively, we are all just animals. I answered NO because I love dogs but in truth theres absolutely nothing weird about eating dogs and its not something to condescend upon. Countries cultures are not gonna change anytime soon though, so you might as well get used to westerners thinking you are weird for eating dog.
On April 15 2012 18:45 FrodoAndTheSlobStix wrote: It's so sad that people eat meat so they, out of guilt, say it's ok to eat dog, knowing if they don't it will flaw the philosophy of eating meat.
Animals dont need to died so you can eat meat. They just dont! Bend down rip som grass from the floor and shove it in your mouth! You'll survive!
No one will even begin to logically debate with thm selves whether it's wrong or not, because they subconsciously know they wouldnt be able to stop or even consider it.
Try me. I guarntee I can slam ANY argumetn against not eating meat. It's like trying to prove me guilty of murder , Im not afraid because Im innocent, so theres nothing u can possibly say because your wrong.
Humans are omnivorous, which means we are designed to eat both plants and animals. We don't NEED to eat animals anymore (there are substitutes for almost anything you can find in meat) but that doesn't make it "wrong".
Also, you won't survive off eating grass. Your stomach isn't able to process it, and it'll destroy your teeth.
As long as the animals are raised in a good environment and not in tiny cages their whole lives, I'd be ok with it. I wouldn't eat any myself, speaking as a dog owner in a family where everyone owns many dogs. I think the same for every animal you can find on a plate, raise them in a good environment and butcher them humanely.
The animal has a good life with everything provided, then instantly lights out. No pain and no suffering. I'd like to hope that one day animals are kept that way everywhere.
Eating animals already is a kinda big waste of resources; eating animals that eat animals is even worse. And doing this while people are still starving is just wrong.
On April 15 2012 18:45 FrodoAndTheSlobStix wrote: It's so sad that people eat meat so they, out of guilt, say it's ok to eat dog, knowing if they don't it will flaw the philosophy of eating meat.
Animals dont need to died so you can eat meat. They just dont! Bend down rip som grass from the floor and shove it in your mouth! You'll survive!
No one will even begin to logically debate with thm selves whether it's wrong or not, because they subconsciously know they wouldnt be able to stop or even consider it.
Try me. I guarntee I can slam ANY argumetn against not eating meat. It's like trying to prove me guilty of murder , Im not afraid because Im innocent, so theres nothing u can possibly say because your wrong.
Humans are omnivorous, which means we are designed to eat both plants and animals. We don't NEED to eat animals anymore (there are substitutes for almost anything you can find in meat) but that doesn't make it "wrong".
Also, you won't survive off eating grass. Your stomach isn't able to process it, and it'll destroy your teeth.
lol, I bet they could easily find a way to process grass for humans to eat. I highly doubt anyone would though by that point. It would be like eating half digested muck that still refuses to go down easily.
As for eating dogs, ethnically its just like any other animal (minus human i guess), but culturally, it's a huge nono in the west. Cultural stigma is all I need to not eat dog, as I rather wouldn't anyways. From what I hear though, the dogs that they breed for food are mad ugly, so I guess they're treated more like cattle than like food.
On April 15 2012 20:54 Dyme wrote: "Producing dogs for food" is unethical.
Eating animals already is a kinda big waste of resources; eating animals that eat animals is even worse. And doing this while people are still starving is just wrong.
I feel you make a lot of sense but I might just be too narrow to understand you. Could you please elaborate? And how would you relate it to starvation... Thanks.
On April 15 2012 20:54 Dyme wrote: "Producing dogs for food" is unethical.
Eating animals already is a kinda big waste of resources; eating animals that eat animals is even worse. And doing this while people are still starving is just wrong.
I feel you make a lot of sense but I might just be too narrow to understand you. Could you please elaborate? And how would you relate it to starvation... Thanks.
Perhaps he is referring to ecological efficiency, in which energy is continually lost (exponentially?) in the transfer to the next trophic level. This means that sun and other energy used by plants to grow is efficient. When animals eat that grass, it is much less efficient. When an animal proceeds to eat the animal that ate that grass, it's horribly inefficient compared to the original producer.
The whole starvation thing appears to be nonsense.
Meat is meat. And the way chicken is bred is horrible 2. So don't be so hypocritical about dog meat people. Meat is meat. Cause some people has them as pet doesn't mean anything. Some has chicken as pet or pigs or horses and people eat them too.
I think the real discussion point should be enforcing humane killing methods. Be it dog, chicken or pork, abuses run rampant in the industry. Im fine with dog meat
Its all about perspective and the use of the actual animal. I think it hearkens back to the days when dogs where used to help hunt other animals and therefore were not eaten because they actually had a use. Same thing with horses. I suppose the utility of the animal should be a guide to whether it should be eaten or not.
That said, I have no qualms about anyone eating dog meat. I only have problems when people go after endangered animals.
in terms of objective morality there's nothing inherently wrong with eating dogs, just as there's nothing wrong with cannibalism.
in my subjective preference, i would not eat a dog, and i look down upon people who do eat dogs. to op: moral relativism is a slippery slope to moral nihilism.
On April 15 2012 08:30 Bigtony wrote: The distinction I make is that cows/chickens/etc are raised intentionally for food whereas dogs/cats/etc are domesticated for companionship. I don't think there is anything morally wrong with eating them, I just wouldn't.
In those countries where eating dog is common (China and Korea traditionally) they are raised like cattle. They don't eat their pets.
Given a choice of course I wouldn't eat any dog meat and since I raised one and took care of it from a pup of course the dog lover in me will rather die than eat dog meat . Although maybe it is hypocritical of me for not saying not to eat dog meat when I eat every farm bred domesticated animals out there .
I want to put forward these arguments if anything that has meat should be eaten why humans shouldn't be on the dinner plate it self ? I find it amusing when we have that kind of perspective of "it's just meat so just eat it " but we don't eat human meat because it's not justified .
The majority of humans think we are superior to other species. They think that it is okay to raise livestock for consumption because we're better than them.
On April 15 2012 21:40 Sawamura wrote: Given a choice of course I wouldn't eat any dog meat and since I raised one and took care of it from a pup of course the dog lover in me will rather die than eat dog meat . Although maybe it is hypocritical of me for not saying not to eat dog meat when I eat every farm bred domesticated animals out there .
I want to put forward these arguments if anything that has meat should be eaten why humans shouldn't be on the dinner plate it self ? I find it amusing when we have that kind of perspective of "it's just meat so just eat it " but we don't eat human meat because it's not justified .
You see any other animals posting here besides humans? Ever heard the term "sentience"? You do realize that there is a fundamental difference between humans and animals right?
On April 15 2012 21:40 Sawamura wrote: Given a choice of course I wouldn't eat any dog meat and since I raised one and took care of it from a pup of course the dog lover in me will rather die than eat dog meat . Although maybe it is hypocritical of me for not saying not to eat dog meat when I eat every farm bred domesticated animals out there .
I want to put forward these arguments if anything that has meat should be eaten why humans shouldn't be on the dinner plate it self ? I find it amusing when we have that kind of perspective of "it's just meat so just eat it " but we don't eat human meat because it's not justified .
You see any other animals posting here besides humans? Ever heard the term "sentience"? You do realize that there is a fundamental difference between humans and animals right?
Just because animals doesn't speak the same language that doesn't mean they do consent to becoming your food in the next 20 minutes.
I don't eat meat so I would have to go with no. But considering that pigs for example rank higher than most dogs in intelligence tests I don't see a logical reason to eat pig but not dog meat. Edit: To one of the posters before me: Sentience is not a binary option. There are many animals that possess a degree of sentients. Most adult mammals have a higher degree of sentients than human babys but you are probably not okay with eating those.
I guess I'm okay with it, although if I found it on a restaurant in Sweden I would find it very absurd. I can't see myself ever actually eating it though.
On April 15 2012 21:40 Sawamura wrote: Given a choice of course I wouldn't eat any dog meat and since I raised one and took care of it from a pup of course the dog lover in me will rather die than eat dog meat . Although maybe it is hypocritical of me for not saying not to eat dog meat when I eat every farm bred domesticated animals out there .
I want to put forward these arguments if anything that has meat should be eaten why humans shouldn't be on the dinner plate it self ? I find it amusing when we have that kind of perspective of "it's just meat so just eat it " but we don't eat human meat because it's not justified .
You see any other animals posting here besides humans? Ever heard the term "sentience"? You do realize that there is a fundamental difference between humans and animals right?
There's also the huge difference between eating other species and eating one of our own.
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!
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
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.
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 COOKED 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!
Haah! :D
But yeah... Meat is meat. I would be totally up for some dog or cat meat, were it available here.
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.
I don't eat dog, never have. As a child, the idea of eating a dog never came up. I was taught that some animals are for food and some are not (pets). Dogs were more seen as a pet or toy for entertainment and companionship, not a food. Meat comes in all varities and flavours. I was never taught that "meat is meat" as some people say, and quite honestly I would so prefer a Steak over some hotdog meat.. (Sorry for the pun XD). I don't care what people eat, as much as I don't care for people smoking. If you want to eat whatever, go for it. :D
On April 15 2012 23:04 Spikeke wrote: I don't eat dog, never have. While growing up, the idea of eating a dog never came up. As a child I was taught that some animals are for food and some are not (pets). Dogs were more seen as a pet or toy for entertainment and companionship, not a food. Meat comes in all varities and flavours. I was never taught that "meat is meat" as some people say, and quite honestly I would so prefer a Steak over some hotdog meat... I don't care what people eat, as much as I don't care for people smoking. If you want to eat whatever, go for it. :D
You are subject to the dominant ideology of Carnism!
Carnism is the invisible belief system, or ideology, that conditions people to eat certain animals. Carnism is essentially the opposite of vegetarianism or veganism; “carn” means “flesh” or “of the flesh” and “ism” denotes a belief system. Most people view eating animals as a given, rather than a choice; in meat-eating cultures around the world people typically don’t think about why they find the meat of some animals disgusting and the meat of other animals appetizing, or why they eat any animals at all. But when eating animals isn’t a necessity for survival, as is the case in the majority of the world today, it is a choice - and choices always stem from beliefs (Source).
Watch this youtube video titled "Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism" to get a better idea of what I am talking about!
read first page and couldnt be bothered to read 17 pages of the same stuff so heres my 2c
The eating of any food is defined by the culture your brought up in, If your culture seems acceptable and its a normal thing then you wouldnt think about it , in some countries meat is just meat.. me being from the UK means my normal food is pig , lamb, and cows ..
Dog is not part of my normal diet however i dont normally eat turtle or any of the other weird asian food that i have come across on my travels.. does it mean i am against it? no eat what you want
I would say the usual "taboo" aspect of eating dog meat is that we can create bonds so much easily with them than other animals, they are loyal, intelligent, even cute if you wish. The main issue isn't "eating dog meat is bad, just because" the problem goes far beyond because you feel bad about it, since you can relate to the experience of loving a dog (specially in the Western culture, in which dogs have been a faithful companion for thousands of years) there is absoloutley nothing wrong with it, it just feels plainly sad/disgusted, also the way they produce them is flawed (as mostly any animal in any country, despise the fact that unestressed and "happy" animals, have a better taste). I would try it, probably wouldnt integrate it as a regular diet though. Eating cats goes along the exact same logic in my opinion.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
In Europe dogs were commonly eaten up to 50 years ago especially in the countryside. Their fat was used for medical purposes and they were even eaten mostly by poor people that could not afford something else. The taboo aspect came with people getting richer and with dumb media. I would not eat my dot but I'd have no problem eating a dog bred for this purpose.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
On April 15 2012 08:27 NtsenG wrote: so you think its any more or less ok to eat cows or pigs just because they are less cute? lol
No. It isn't necessarily because dogs are "cute", but more to the fact that humans have kept them as pets for thousands of years for their obedience and loyalty. Cattle and live stock have always been a food source and not pets. I do have a biased viewpoint being that my mother is a veterinarian and I work in an animal hospital myself, but our society accepts cats and dogs as companions and not food. Thankfully, our world is changing and people are stopping these old traditions.
Same as horse, but more people are fine with eating horse somehow.
I once ate horse meat in a can and it was a fried rice. Super delicious stuff.
On April 15 2012 20:54 Dyme wrote: "Producing dogs for food" is unethical.
Eating animals already is a kinda big waste of resources; eating animals that eat animals is even worse. And doing this while people are still starving is just wrong.
I feel you make a lot of sense but I might just be too narrow to understand you. Could you please elaborate? And how would you relate it to starvation... Thanks.
Perhaps he is referring to ecological efficiency, in which energy is continually lost (exponentially?) in the transfer to the next trophic level. This means that sun and other energy used by plants to grow is efficient. When animals eat that grass, it is much less efficient. When an animal proceeds to eat the animal that ate that grass, it's horribly inefficient compared to the original producer.
The whole starvation thing appears to be nonsense.
These numbers will be untrue and kinda off: Let's say 500kg corn or soy or whatever pigs eat turn into 100kg pig. And then 100kg pig turn into 20kg dog (because living things lose energy by heat/movement etc.).
Well anyways, plants get more expensive if you use them for these inefficent things, and poor people can't afford them. In the same way that bio-fuel made food more expensive.
We shouldn't use food too inefficiently as long as there a still people who don't have enough food.
I see no difference between eating pigs, dogs or any other animal because they are all animals. I just wouldn't do it because Im not used but I don't mind people doing it.
Well, if you are ok with eating meat, then it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to discriminate between meat sources based on "cuteness" (Hotbid says Dog tastes like shit, see above picture). Funnily enough the whole whale/dolphin issue that the western publics are criticising Japan for is, besides the matter of extinction, somewhat related there.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
Why should we care, though? It's logistically impossible to treat all animals as humans. Would you prefer for all the livestock to be killed off and wasted, or should we subsidize the upkeep of the animals without getting any use out of them?
If you look at it reasonably, they can't be given sufficient legal rights to be anything but property, as they're incapable of meeting societally functional levels of legal responsibility. You can't evict them or make them pay rent in any way that wouldn't be considered unethical if they're treated as legal entities.
Ethically, we either kill off entire species, or continue getting use out of them as under the current system. It's not perfect, but I can't see it being better to wipe them all out, and it's not really feasible to keep them around without taking advantage of animal products.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
Communism and feminism necessarily imply that everybody suddenly changes their natural way of thinking to create this utopian society. looks like veggies too LOL.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: I dont have a problem with eating dog meat per se, but for sure with agricultural farming / herding of dogs.There are differences to lets say farming cattle. Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Same applies to animals like apes, cats or elephants for example.
Not sure how I could miss that post... but... SERIOUSLY?
You are saying that pigs/cows/sheep/chicken have been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming?
You are also saying that they are less social animals than dogs? That they don't go mad under the conditions most of them are living in?
Are you like.. out of your mind? What is your basis for those claims?
I am not okay with eating any animals in general. So, I would have to say that I am not okay with eating dogs. If I could place myself in the scenario that eating meat was okay, I would be indifferent to dog meat versus other meats. However, I can't view animals on the same plane. There is a hierarchy of well being that would entitle animals to not be eaten. Although difficult to decipher, it is there. This list isn't exact, nor did I place too much time into it; this is just an example:
You get the point. As a vegetarian working toward vegan--I consume dairy products maybe 2 times a week--I draw the line probably at insects, maybe rats, but these areas are grey. I wouldn't be for thoughtless killing of these rats, but if science came into play to better mankind, I would be okay with it; however, not so much when it comes down to the higher spectrum of the list.
On April 15 2012 23:53 Competent wrote: I am not okay with eating any animals in general. So, I would have to say that I am not okay with eating dogs. If I could place myself in the scenario that eating meat was okay, I would be indifferent to dog meat versus other meats. However, I can't view animals on the same plane. There is a hierarchy of well being that would entitle animals to not be eaten. Although difficult to decipher, it is there. This list isn't exact, nor did I place too much time into it; this is just an example:
You get the point. As a vegetarian working toward vegan--I consume dairy products maybe 2 times a week--I draw the line probably at insects, maybe rats, but these areas are grey. I wouldn't be for thoughtless killing of these rats, but if science came into play to better mankind, I would be okay with it; however, not so much when it comes down to the higher spectrum of the list.
So what you are implying is, that your decisition to be a vegetarian is based on feelings because you are indiffirent to rats and other lower life forms. Honestly I don't want to insult your feelings but it seems a little irrational to me to act such a way and then say you are indifferent to rats just because you don't like them.
Mmh. I honestly don't really mind people eating dog meat. I would be reluctant to the idea but i guess i could be convinced to do so myself. Having said that i must mention that i do not have a dog. The main problem that i have with this is how was the dog raised / treated / killed. For instance, i can probably see myself eating another human if i have to do so in order to survive and if he is already dead, but i can't even picture a human killing another human for food, nor do i see myself eating someone's leg unless required to survive. But we are talking about treating it as "yet another type of meat" so i guess it's similar to horse meat in that regard. Animal cruelty is my main concern here. I'd say pigs / cows / chicken are not treated too well either but i can't really do much of anything about that can i ? It's also worth mentionning that i eat meat because i feel like my body needs both to be healthy, if i woke up and my teeth looked like that of a tiger i'd stop eating salad / tomatoes etc ... altogether and i'd only ever feed on meat, because that's what i'd need. The same way, if i seriously belived that humans should eat vegetables only i'd stop feeding on other mammals.
All in all i'm fine with it, i feel like " eating pigs is acceptable because they're raised that way but not dogs because we also use them as pets " is a bit hypocritical, i mean they're all animals, sure there's a food chain but you can't really say that a dog's life is worth more than a pig's.
TLDR : I'm fine with other people eating dog meat. I don't like the idea but could be convinced to try and would definately do it if my survival depended on it. I'm only worried about animal cruelty.
On April 15 2012 23:53 Competent wrote: I am not okay with eating any animals in general. So, I would have to say that I am not okay with eating dogs. If I could place myself in the scenario that eating meat was okay, I would be indifferent to dog meat versus other meats. However, I can't view animals on the same plane. There is a hierarchy of well being that would entitle animals to not be eaten. Although difficult to decipher, it is there. This list isn't exact, nor did I place too much time into it; this is just an example:
You get the point. As a vegetarian working toward vegan--I consume dairy products maybe 2 times a week--I draw the line probably at insects, maybe rats, but these areas are grey. I wouldn't be for thoughtless killing of these rats, but if science came into play to better mankind, I would be okay with it; however, not so much when it comes down to the higher spectrum of the list.
Your list is strange. Pigs are quite a bit smarter then dogs and equally social. Rats are roughly as intelligent as dogs are too and chickens are probably not much worse.
I eat just about anything on that list except for primates (I like them) and dolphins (not for sale)
I mean, dogs were specifically bread by humans for companionship and other tasks, so eating them feels like betraying them. Unlike cows, pigs, chickens, etc.
So what you are implying is, that your decisition to be a vegetarian is based on feelings because you are indiffirent to rats and other lower life forms. Honestly I don't want to insult your feelings but it seems a little irrational to me to act such a way and then say you are indifferent to rats just because you don't like them.
Well, I guess you could go back to my post and tell me where I said I didn't like rats. I actually love the little creatures. I had many rodents as pets growing up. A few of which were white mice--among other hamsters, gerbils, and a chinchilla. My reason for being vegetarian is based on animal well being. Primates/dogs/dolphins can suffer more so than rats. This is the only reason I would permit experiments on rats, but not thoughtless abuse--or the consumption of. And ONLY if it was for the greater good.
There is a hierarchy of well being that would entitle animals to not be eaten.
My cut off line in the hierarchy just happens to be very low, right below rodents. I should probably also add that I do not kill bugs. Every insect I find in my house I go out of my way to cup them, and release them outside. My boss also finds me intolerable, especially when I feel compelled to stop work and take the beetle or moth I find outside. The list might seem conflicting with this, but I don't really view the insects well being in this process, just mere fascination and respect is what fuels my rescuing of them.
On April 16 2012 00:04 Lann555 wrote:
Your list is strange. Pigs are quite a bit smarter then dogs and equally social. Rats are roughly as intelligent as dogs are too and chickens are probably not much worse.
I eat just about anything on that list except for primates (I like them) and dolphins (not for sale)
They are actually not as intelligent. How closely intelligent is debatable. And if you didn't read, I said the list is not accurate and was put together swiftly.
This list isn't exact, nor did I place too much time into it; this is just an example:
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
Why should we care, though? It's logistically impossible to treat all animals as humans. Would you prefer for all the livestock to be killed off and wasted, or should we subsidize the upkeep of the animals without getting any use out of them?
If you look at it reasonably, they can't be given sufficient legal rights to be anything but property, as they're incapable of meeting societally functional levels of legal responsibility. You can't evict them or make them pay rent in any way that wouldn't be considered unethical if they're treated as legal entities.
Ethically, we either kill off entire species, or continue getting use out of them as under the current system. It's not perfect, but I can't see it being better to wipe them all out, and it's not really feasible to keep them around without taking advantage of animal products.
We should care because animals are sentient beings. I disagree that it is impossible to treat all animals with respect, which means not killing them for our own pleasure. The vast majority of humans can survive perfectly well eating a plant-based diet (example: ME!). Since it is a CHOICE for humans to eat meat, then we must be doing it for pleasure at the expense of a sentient life. That is something I fundamentally disagree with and think should end.
All domesticated animals can be kept as companions, including pigs, cows, and chickens. There is no need logically to "kill off" the entire species just because I don't choose to eat them. As the demand for meat slows, farms will slow the reproduction rate of these types of animals, so the needs to be no "kill off". In the end, the animal population will be smaller, but that might not be such as bad thing.
Thing about dogs is that they've been bred to be companion animals, being able to share deep emotional bonds with humans. This is an animal that humans have lived with for thousands of years, basically recreating the wolf into a companion. There's a very natural reason why people are adverse to eating something bred to be cute and friendly towards them.
That said, As long as the fur trade in Asia is going strong and dogs are being killed for their fur, I have no problem with the bodies being used as food instead of being discarded, although I do highly disagree with the fur trade overall.
Where dog meat comes from is another question... Often it's stolen pets that end up as food for someone, othertimes it's the fur farms.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
On April 15 2012 23:53 Competent wrote: I am not okay with eating any animals in general. So, I would have to say that I am not okay with eating dogs...
As a vegetarian working toward vegan...
I fully support your work toward being vegan. It is nice to know there are others of us on TL!
On April 15 2012 23:43 JingleHell wrote: Why should we care, though? It's logistically impossible to treat all animals as humans. Would you prefer for all the livestock to be killed off and wasted, or should we subsidize the upkeep of the animals without getting any use out of them?
If you look at it reasonably, they can't be given sufficient legal rights to be anything but property, as they're incapable of meeting societally functional levels of legal responsibility. You can't evict them or make them pay rent in any way that wouldn't be considered unethical if they're treated as legal entities.
Ethically, we either kill off entire species, or continue getting use out of them as under the current system. It's not perfect, but I can't see it being better to wipe them all out, and it's not really feasible to keep them around without taking advantage of animal products.
Wow, what an incredibly stupid and unlettered post. Might I suggest reading a book?
On April 16 2012 00:29 dmfg wrote:
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
There is very good reason. Considering that there is no reason to assume us humans are not animals as well and that we can suffer because of our nervous system. Other animals--like us--have nervous systems--like ours--and thus the only reasonable conclusion is they can feel pain--like us. Granted the pain that they feel might not be as intense, and will surely degrade as we travel down the chain of species with less developed nervous systems, this doesn't mean it shouldn't be acknowledged. Obviously there might be situations in a world where no one consumed meat that might cause problems, and obviously those would have to be dealt with. The issue, though, is that I don't think those problems will be as bad as the current problems. 90 billion animals in circulation to be killed, means a lot of suffering and a lot of environmental damage. This is evident.
I am going to say that it depends. I'm not going to say I'm okay with it or not. Personally I would not eat dog or cat meat. However, in Korea, these dogs are bred for the purpose of being eaten and they are the only type of dog eaten there. As long as they are killed humanely, I have no problem with this. If you get into somewhere like China, where animals are tortured to "improve taste" and are taken off the streets to be eaten, and in some horrific cases, even stolen from families, then no, it's not okay. That is not okay at all. But as long as the animal is specficially bred for food, then while I may not eat it, I cannot object to it.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
Why should we care, though? It's logistically impossible to treat all animals as humans. Would you prefer for all the livestock to be killed off and wasted, or should we subsidize the upkeep of the animals without getting any use out of them?
If you look at it reasonably, they can't be given sufficient legal rights to be anything but property, as they're incapable of meeting societally functional levels of legal responsibility. You can't evict them or make them pay rent in any way that wouldn't be considered unethical if they're treated as legal entities.
Ethically, we either kill off entire species, or continue getting use out of them as under the current system. It's not perfect, but I can't see it being better to wipe them all out, and it's not really feasible to keep them around without taking advantage of animal products.
We should care because animals are sentient beings. I disagree that it is impossible to treat all animals with respect, which means not killing them for our own pleasure. The vast majority of humans can survive perfectly well eating a plant-based diet (example: ME!). Since it is a CHOICE for humans to eat meat, then we must be doing it for pleasure at the expense of a sentient life. That is something I fundamentally disagree with and think should end.
All domesticated animals can be kept as companions, including pigs, cows, and chickens. There is no need logically to "kill off" the entire species just because I don't choose to eat them. As the demand for meat slows, farms will slow the reproduction rate of these types of animals, so the needs to be no "kill off". In the end, the animal population will be smaller, but that might not be such as bad thing.
Depending on which definition of "sentient" you use, you're either not going to be able to prove it, or you're ignoring the fact that plants can also have a measure of sentience. If you're going by self-awareness, we don't know if all animals ARE self-aware, and if you're going by capacity for sensation, many plants react to stimuli in a way that would suggest just such a thing. In other words, what makes a plant less valuable than an animal, by your logic?
You can't say we shouldn't kill animals because it's cruel and then discuss keeping them as pets. Keeping them as pets implies bending them to our will, a form of slavery, if you will. Unless they're free to wander, at which point they're capable of trespass and property damage. Do we incarcerate them at this point? They can't have rights as a legal entity without responsibility as one.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
Serious question: have you ever lived with an animal (dog/cat/etc.)? If so, I think you would notice that each animal has its own personality. A personality based on nature and nurture, just like humans!
I have seen my dogs do crazy smart things. They have figured out, WITHOUT training, how to open doors, steal food, and even try to disguise their stealing of food! Animals absolutely have conscious thought!
Please stop derrailing the thread into things such as categorizing animals from your point of view, and skin farms. The thread has a specific subject "the ethics and viewpoints of the consumption of an animal that is widely regarded as something we care for and respect", imposing your alimentary thoughts down other people's throats and going on and making a list (...?) of animals as in how important they are is absurd, same as skin farms, its a completley out of the subject discussion.
read some pages looking for valid arguments against eating it. Didn't find any. If you are fine with eating other animals then only ignorance stops you from being okay with people eating dogs.
For me personally I have tried it and I liked the dish but I was unaware that it was dog. I would never go for dog if I have alternatives such as for example chicken
On April 16 2012 00:41 BerserKr wrote: Please stop derrailing the thread into things such as categorizing animals from your point of view, and skin farms. The thread has a specific subject "the ethics and viewpoints of the consumption of an animal that is widely regarded as something we care for and respect", imposing your alimentary thoughts down other people's throats and going on and making a list (...?) of animals as in how important they are is absurd, same as skin farms, its a completley out of the subject discussion.
When you are talking about ethics and the history of human development along with dogs, I don't see how you can actually distinguish between the two. They are intertwined.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
Why should we care, though? It's logistically impossible to treat all animals as humans. Would you prefer for all the livestock to be killed off and wasted, or should we subsidize the upkeep of the animals without getting any use out of them?
If you look at it reasonably, they can't be given sufficient legal rights to be anything but property, as they're incapable of meeting societally functional levels of legal responsibility. You can't evict them or make them pay rent in any way that wouldn't be considered unethical if they're treated as legal entities.
Ethically, we either kill off entire species, or continue getting use out of them as under the current system. It's not perfect, but I can't see it being better to wipe them all out, and it's not really feasible to keep them around without taking advantage of animal products.
We should care because animals are sentient beings. I disagree that it is impossible to treat all animals with respect, which means not killing them for our own pleasure. The vast majority of humans can survive perfectly well eating a plant-based diet (example: ME!). Since it is a CHOICE for humans to eat meat, then we must be doing it for pleasure at the expense of a sentient life. That is something I fundamentally disagree with and think should end.
All domesticated animals can be kept as companions, including pigs, cows, and chickens. There is no need logically to "kill off" the entire species just because I don't choose to eat them. As the demand for meat slows, farms will slow the reproduction rate of these types of animals, so the needs to be no "kill off". In the end, the animal population will be smaller, but that might not be such as bad thing.
Depending on which definition of "sentient" you use, you're either not going to be able to prove it, or you're ignoring the fact that plants can also have a measure of sentience. If you're going by self-awareness, we don't know if all animals ARE self-aware, and if you're going by capacity for sensation, many plants react to stimuli in a way that would suggest just such a thing. In other words, what makes a plant less valuable than an animal, by your logic?
You can't say we shouldn't kill animals because it's cruel and then discuss keeping them as pets. Keeping them as pets implies bending them to our will, a form of slavery, if you will. Unless they're free to wander, at which point they're capable of trespass and property damage. Do we incarcerate them at this point? They can't have rights as a legal entity without responsibility as one.
Wait, your best response is that plants are "sentient" under some weird definition of sentience? I think that we can all agree that plants are entirely different from animals, and we are talking about animals here. The weakness of your defense shows itself!
With regards to the "pet" thing, I don't have pets, I have companion animals that I care for just like I would a child. They are my responsibility, not my "slave", because I choose that burden for myself. I feed my dogs good food, play with and teach them, and provide medical care. As I would my own child. Humans CHOSE to domestic animals, and thus all domesticated animals are our responsibility, not our slaves.
On April 16 2012 00:41 BerserKr wrote: Please stop derrailing the thread into things such as categorizing animals from your point of view, and skin farms. The thread has a specific subject "the ethics and viewpoints of the consumption of an animal that is widely regarded as something we care for and respect", imposing your alimentary thoughts down other people's throats and going on and making a list (...?) of animals as in how important they are is absurd, same as skin farms, its a completley out of the subject discussion.
When you are talking about ethics and the history of human development along with dogs, I don't see how you can actually distinguish between the two. They are intertwined.
You can make a relation between why could it be wrong to consume the meat relating it to the bonds we've created with the animal in question, but always sticking to the thread, tell me whats the relation between a subjective categorization of animals and a fur farm, with the ethics of consuming dog meat.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
This post is pretty crazy. Are you arguing that no animals can have feelings ? You do realize that we humans are animals as well correct ? Socially dogs are more intelligent than chimpanzees and other animals have empathy as well. I'm guessing a lot of people here either think only in terms of brutal efficiency or have never been around animals.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
Why should we care, though? It's logistically impossible to treat all animals as humans. Would you prefer for all the livestock to be killed off and wasted, or should we subsidize the upkeep of the animals without getting any use out of them?
If you look at it reasonably, they can't be given sufficient legal rights to be anything but property, as they're incapable of meeting societally functional levels of legal responsibility. You can't evict them or make them pay rent in any way that wouldn't be considered unethical if they're treated as legal entities.
Ethically, we either kill off entire species, or continue getting use out of them as under the current system. It's not perfect, but I can't see it being better to wipe them all out, and it's not really feasible to keep them around without taking advantage of animal products.
We should care because animals are sentient beings. I disagree that it is impossible to treat all animals with respect, which means not killing them for our own pleasure. The vast majority of humans can survive perfectly well eating a plant-based diet (example: ME!). Since it is a CHOICE for humans to eat meat, then we must be doing it for pleasure at the expense of a sentient life. That is something I fundamentally disagree with and think should end.
All domesticated animals can be kept as companions, including pigs, cows, and chickens. There is no need logically to "kill off" the entire species just because I don't choose to eat them. As the demand for meat slows, farms will slow the reproduction rate of these types of animals, so the needs to be no "kill off". In the end, the animal population will be smaller, but that might not be such as bad thing.
Depending on which definition of "sentient" you use, you're either not going to be able to prove it, or you're ignoring the fact that plants can also have a measure of sentience. If you're going by self-awareness, we don't know if all animals ARE self-aware, and if you're going by capacity for sensation, many plants react to stimuli in a way that would suggest just such a thing. In other words, what makes a plant less valuable than an animal, by your logic?
You can't say we shouldn't kill animals because it's cruel and then discuss keeping them as pets. Keeping them as pets implies bending them to our will, a form of slavery, if you will. Unless they're free to wander, at which point they're capable of trespass and property damage. Do we incarcerate them at this point? They can't have rights as a legal entity without responsibility as one.
Wait, your best response is that plants are "sentient" under some weird definition of sentience? I think that we can all agree that plants are entirely different from animals, and we are talking about animals here. The weakness of your defense shows itself!
With regards to the "pet" thing, I don't have pets, I have companion animals that I care for just like I would a child. They are my responsibility, not my "slave", because I choose that burden for myself. I feed my dogs good food, plays, teach, and give medical care to. As I would a child. Humans CHOSE to domestic animals, and thus all domesticated animals are our responsibility, not our slaves.
sen·tient [sen-shuhnt] Show IPA adjective 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
That's not a weird definition of sentience. Perception by the senses, or conscious. Plants can perceive things via senses, a good example would be a venus flytrap, which uses sensation to respond to the stimulus of a bug landing on it to close and eat it.
Consciousness, well, I'm not entirely qualified on that one, but I'd bet there's some hefty studies.
As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
Why should we care, though? It's logistically impossible to treat all animals as humans. Would you prefer for all the livestock to be killed off and wasted, or should we subsidize the upkeep of the animals without getting any use out of them?
If you look at it reasonably, they can't be given sufficient legal rights to be anything but property, as they're incapable of meeting societally functional levels of legal responsibility. You can't evict them or make them pay rent in any way that wouldn't be considered unethical if they're treated as legal entities.
Ethically, we either kill off entire species, or continue getting use out of them as under the current system. It's not perfect, but I can't see it being better to wipe them all out, and it's not really feasible to keep them around without taking advantage of animal products.
We should care because animals are sentient beings. I disagree that it is impossible to treat all animals with respect, which means not killing them for our own pleasure. The vast majority of humans can survive perfectly well eating a plant-based diet (example: ME!). Since it is a CHOICE for humans to eat meat, then we must be doing it for pleasure at the expense of a sentient life. That is something I fundamentally disagree with and think should end.
All domesticated animals can be kept as companions, including pigs, cows, and chickens. There is no need logically to "kill off" the entire species just because I don't choose to eat them. As the demand for meat slows, farms will slow the reproduction rate of these types of animals, so the needs to be no "kill off". In the end, the animal population will be smaller, but that might not be such as bad thing.
Depending on which definition of "sentient" you use, you're either not going to be able to prove it, or you're ignoring the fact that plants can also have a measure of sentience. If you're going by self-awareness, we don't know if all animals ARE self-aware, and if you're going by capacity for sensation, many plants react to stimuli in a way that would suggest just such a thing. In other words, what makes a plant less valuable than an animal, by your logic?
You can't say we shouldn't kill animals because it's cruel and then discuss keeping them as pets. Keeping them as pets implies bending them to our will, a form of slavery, if you will. Unless they're free to wander, at which point they're capable of trespass and property damage. Do we incarcerate them at this point? They can't have rights as a legal entity without responsibility as one.
Wait, your best response is that plants are "sentient" under some weird definition of sentience? I think that we can all agree that plants are entirely different from animals, and we are talking about animals here. The weakness of your defense shows itself!
With regards to the "pet" thing, I don't have pets, I have companion animals that I care for just like I would a child. They are my responsibility, not my "slave", because I choose that burden for myself. I feed my dogs good food, plays, teach, and give medical care to. As I would a child. Humans CHOSE to domestic animals, and thus all domesticated animals are our responsibility, not our slaves.
sen·tient [sen-shuhnt] Show IPA adjective 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
That's not a weird definition of sentience. Perception by the senses, or conscious. Plants can perceive things via senses, a good example would be a venus flytrap, which uses sensation to respond to the stimulus of a bug landing on it to close and eat it.
Consciousness, well, I'm not entirely qualified on that one, but I'd bet there's some hefty studies.
As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
The "consciousness" part is key. It is not reasonable to argue that plants have consciousness, while it is completely reasonable to argue that animals have consciousness. Stop relying on the "plants" argument this is a discussion about animals.
My dogs are NOT slaves because I do not extract labor from them, like one would a slave. I feed, house, and care for them regardless.
On April 15 2012 09:33 OptimusYale wrote: Its delicious!
I don't care how its prepared, I don't care what animal it is, I will eat it at least once
and I've eaten dog twice...not a single fuck was given
As for the morals...we are omnivores, basically we're designed to eat anything in a survival situation...and if you are like 'awwwww that animals cute' in a survival situation then you deserve to die....the only difference between survival and eating normally is that we can 'choose' different foods to eat...but it's less morals and people just thinking 'awww but they're so cute'
I guess that means you would eat homo sapiens as well ?
One question for the brutal efficiency type of answers a lot of people are giving. Why do we bury our dead instead of serving them for dinner ? It would certainly lessen the demand for food in the world if we could recycle human beings.
Mind you I want serious answers to the question, as I am genuinely curious as to what the " meat is meat " people think on this subject.
Alright, this is my opinion. Now, I've had dogs as pets. I grew up with a pit bull and I am currently living with a husky. I have a fondness for cats as well.
I do not believe it is unethical to eat dog meat, no more than any other animal currently being eaten by the Western world. I would find it incredibly disturbing to eat the meat of a dog I helped raise, however, simply because it was 'family' and we don't eat our own. We just don't.
On the other hand, a dog is not a human. A dog is a dog. If my dog went against all of my training and decided to hurt another human, that dog would be put down, family or no.
On April 16 2012 00:41 BerserKr wrote: Please stop derrailing the thread into things such as categorizing animals from your point of view, and skin farms. The thread has a specific subject "the ethics and viewpoints of the consumption of an animal that is widely regarded as something we care for and respect", imposing your alimentary thoughts down other people's throats and going on and making a list (...?) of animals as in how important they are is absurd, same as skin farms, its a completley out of the subject discussion.
they are 'cared for and respected' for a reason and that reason happens to be: 'because they're important to us'.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
Serious question: have you ever lived with an animal (dog/cat/etc.)? If so, I think you would notice that each animal has its own personality. A personality based on nature and nurture, just like humans!
I have seen my dogs do crazy smart things. They have figured out, WITHOUT training, how to open doors, steal food, and even try to disguise their stealing of food! Animals absolutely have conscious thought!
My mother kept a lot of cats, dogs and chickens, though I wasn't particularly attached to them. My view of this subject is mostly based on neurobiology rather than my interpretations of what my mum's menagerie were doing.
Thing is, there's a separation between "consciousness" and "problem solving ability", and one does not necessarily imply the other. You could write a computer program that could solve incredibly complex problems, even in ways that seem innovative to an observer who is unaware of how it works, but a computer program doesn't have "consciousness".
Here's the thing - what you really want to do, is to be able to ask your dog "are you conscious of self?" "do you feel pain?" "do you love your owner?" etc. The problem is, we are not able to teach dogs concepts at this level - we're only really able to train them that if they receive X stimulus, and perform Y action, they are rewarded.
So we're not able to communicate with animals on a (scientifically) meaningful level, and instead we're forced to interpret their responses through our own expectations of what those responses mean. This is a pretty reasonable thing to do for humans communicating with humans, since you can put yourself in the other person's shoes and think "if I did that, it would mean ...", and reasonably expect it to be true since our brains are sufficiently similar.
The problem is when we're forced to do that with animals. Then we're forcing human thinking onto an animal's actions - "if I were my dog doing X, that means I'd be thinking Y". It's not necessarily a valid step to take.
Animal nervous systems are wired up rather differently to ours, with proportionally much more of their actions dependent on simple reflexes compared to humans whose brains can directly control limb actions. You've probably heard about the chicken that had its head and most of its brain cut off and survived for 9 months, able to carry out most activities of living such as walking, running, digestion, pooing, etc. Experiments on decerebrate cats shows that cats are also able to walk and adjust their speed without the part of the brain thought to be important for conscious thought.
In essence, don't underestimate just how much is possible without conscious thought - even complex, coordinated movements in response to a changing stimulus are possible. Now that's not evidence that animals lack consciousness. It's just a caution against what evidence there is to suggest they do have consciousness.
Any argumet about sentience and consciousness is silly.
Animals are alive, plants are alive. We kill and eat them both and there really is no difference between them when it comes to our guilt. To believe that there is this heirarchy of some living things being more living or less living than other living things is just silly.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
Why should we care, though? It's logistically impossible to treat all animals as humans. Would you prefer for all the livestock to be killed off and wasted, or should we subsidize the upkeep of the animals without getting any use out of them?
If you look at it reasonably, they can't be given sufficient legal rights to be anything but property, as they're incapable of meeting societally functional levels of legal responsibility. You can't evict them or make them pay rent in any way that wouldn't be considered unethical if they're treated as legal entities.
Ethically, we either kill off entire species, or continue getting use out of them as under the current system. It's not perfect, but I can't see it being better to wipe them all out, and it's not really feasible to keep them around without taking advantage of animal products.
We should care because animals are sentient beings. I disagree that it is impossible to treat all animals with respect, which means not killing them for our own pleasure. The vast majority of humans can survive perfectly well eating a plant-based diet (example: ME!). Since it is a CHOICE for humans to eat meat, then we must be doing it for pleasure at the expense of a sentient life. That is something I fundamentally disagree with and think should end.
All domesticated animals can be kept as companions, including pigs, cows, and chickens. There is no need logically to "kill off" the entire species just because I don't choose to eat them. As the demand for meat slows, farms will slow the reproduction rate of these types of animals, so the needs to be no "kill off". In the end, the animal population will be smaller, but that might not be such as bad thing.
Depending on which definition of "sentient" you use, you're either not going to be able to prove it, or you're ignoring the fact that plants can also have a measure of sentience. If you're going by self-awareness, we don't know if all animals ARE self-aware, and if you're going by capacity for sensation, many plants react to stimuli in a way that would suggest just such a thing. In other words, what makes a plant less valuable than an animal, by your logic?
You can't say we shouldn't kill animals because it's cruel and then discuss keeping them as pets. Keeping them as pets implies bending them to our will, a form of slavery, if you will. Unless they're free to wander, at which point they're capable of trespass and property damage. Do we incarcerate them at this point? They can't have rights as a legal entity without responsibility as one.
Wait, your best response is that plants are "sentient" under some weird definition of sentience? I think that we can all agree that plants are entirely different from animals, and we are talking about animals here. The weakness of your defense shows itself!
With regards to the "pet" thing, I don't have pets, I have companion animals that I care for just like I would a child. They are my responsibility, not my "slave", because I choose that burden for myself. I feed my dogs good food, plays, teach, and give medical care to. As I would a child. Humans CHOSE to domestic animals, and thus all domesticated animals are our responsibility, not our slaves.
sen·tient [sen-shuhnt] Show IPA adjective 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
That's not a weird definition of sentience. Perception by the senses, or conscious. Plants can perceive things via senses, a good example would be a venus flytrap, which uses sensation to respond to the stimulus of a bug landing on it to close and eat it.
Consciousness, well, I'm not entirely qualified on that one, but I'd bet there's some hefty studies.
As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
The "consciousness" part is key. It is not reasonable to argue that plants have consciousness, while it is completely reasonable to argue that animals have consciousness. Stop relying on the "plants" argument this is a discussion about animals.
My dogs are NOT slaves because I do not extract labor from them, like one would a slave. I feed, house, and care for them regardless.
How do you prove consciousness, exactly? Hell, science is still having epic trouble determining when to treat humans as conscious and legal entities, so how do we do it with animals?
Just because you dislike the plants argument doesn't make it invalid. If there's something demonstrably wrong with that argument, please feel free to show me empirical evidence. Either we do or do not have the right to exploit other life for our own well-being.
Also, you say your pets aren't slaves because you don't extract labor from them. Slavery isn't about the use, it's about the ownership. Or is it ok to own a person as long as you only make them do things you assume they like?
On April 16 2012 00:40 SolonTLG wrote: Serious question: have you ever lived with an animal (dog/cat/etc.)? If so, I think you would notice that each animal has its own personality. A personality based on nature and nurture, just like humans!
I have seen my dogs do crazy smart things. They have figured out, WITHOUT training, how to open doors, steal food, and even try to disguise their stealing of food! Animals absolutely have conscious thought!
Dude I've had dogs, I loved my dog from when I was a kid, I have a cat right now, I've had fishes and birds. But do you realize that dogs are a very low life form? at the end of the day the strong eat the weak and we're on top of the food chain it's only natural to eat dogs.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
This post is pretty crazy. Are you arguing that no animals can have feelings ? You do realize that we humans are animals as well correct ? Socially dogs are more intelligent than chimpanzees and other animals have empathy as well. I'm guessing a lot of people here either think only in terms of brutal efficiency or have never been around animals.
I'm not arguing that "no animals can have feelings". I'm arguing that there is no scientific evidence that they do have feelings.
Social intelligence is not the same thing as feelings. Dogs are certainly capable of exhibiting behaviour that, if seen in humans, would be interpreted as love. But we cannot know whether this behaviour is because - their brains connections changed so that absence of the other organism results in release of chemicals associated with a negative outcome, or - they actually feel love for the other organism
I guess you can believe whichever you want and noone can really call you out on it. Personally I believe the evidence favours the first explanation.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
Serious question: have you ever lived with an animal (dog/cat/etc.)? If so, I think you would notice that each animal has its own personality. A personality based on nature and nurture, just like humans!
I have seen my dogs do crazy smart things. They have figured out, WITHOUT training, how to open doors, steal food, and even try to disguise their stealing of food! Animals absolutely have conscious thought!
My mother kept a lot of cats, dogs and chickens, though I wasn't particularly attached to them. My view of this subject is mostly based on neurobiology rather than my interpretations of what my mum's menagerie were doing.
Thing is, there's a separation between "consciousness" and "problem solving ability", and one does not necessarily imply the other. You could write a computer program that could solve incredibly complex problems, even in ways that seem innovative to an observer who is unaware of how it works, but a computer program doesn't have "consciousness".
Here's the thing - what you really want to do, is to be able to ask your dog "are you conscious of self?" "do you feel pain?" "do you love your owner?" etc. The problem is, we are not able to teach dogs concepts at this level - we're only really able to train them that if they receive X stimulus, and perform Y action, they are rewarded.
So we're not able to communicate with animals on a (scientifically) meaningful level, and instead we're forced to interpret their responses through our own expectations of what those responses mean. This is a pretty reasonable thing to do for humans communicating with humans, since you can put yourself in the other person's shoes and think "if I did that, it would mean ...", and reasonably expect it to be true since our brains are sufficiently similar.
The problem is when we're forced to do that with animals. Then we're forcing human thinking onto an animal's actions - "if I were my dog doing X, that means I'd be thinking Y". It's not necessarily a valid step to take.
Animal nervous systems are wired up rather differently to ours, with proportionally much more of their actions dependent on simple reflexes compared to humans whose brains can directly control limb actions. You've probably heard about the chicken that had its head and most of its brain cut off and survived for 9 months, able to carry out most activities of living such as walking, running, digestion, pooing, etc. Experiments on decerebrate cats shows that cats are also able to walk and adjust their speed without the part of the brain thought to be important for conscious thought.
In essence, don't underestimate just how much is possible without conscious thought - even complex, coordinated movements in response to a changing stimulus are possible. Now that's not evidence that animals lack consciousness. It's just a caution against what evidence there is to suggest they do have consciousness.
I appreciate your well written and thoughtful reply, but I just disagree. It seems to me the problem is that you cannot prove that animals are NOT consciousness. I have to think (from my experiences) and believe (from what I've read) that animals are conscious, and thus I don't want to kill them for food. You can disagree, but it appears that no one can "conclusively" prove it either way. Wouldn't you want to error on the side of caution and not eat animals? Despite no "proof"?
Kuru is a very rare disease. It is caused by an infectious protein (prion) found in contaminated human brain tissue."
Hard science. Kuru is essentially BSE for humans, resulting in death. Then you might say, well, don't eat their brains, then! It's only rare now because we've stopped eating our own. We can assume, perhaps, that Kuru has died out with the last of the New Guinea people that it killed, but maybe it didn't, and perhaps we would suffer another outbreak if we started eating our own again.
Of course, that's just an argument for those that would ignore the ethical reasons for not eating humans.
Regardless, absalome86, you've pulled us off topic. Dog =/= human, and we are not discussing the consumption of humans.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
Why should we care, though? It's logistically impossible to treat all animals as humans. Would you prefer for all the livestock to be killed off and wasted, or should we subsidize the upkeep of the animals without getting any use out of them?
If you look at it reasonably, they can't be given sufficient legal rights to be anything but property, as they're incapable of meeting societally functional levels of legal responsibility. You can't evict them or make them pay rent in any way that wouldn't be considered unethical if they're treated as legal entities.
Ethically, we either kill off entire species, or continue getting use out of them as under the current system. It's not perfect, but I can't see it being better to wipe them all out, and it's not really feasible to keep them around without taking advantage of animal products.
We should care because animals are sentient beings. I disagree that it is impossible to treat all animals with respect, which means not killing them for our own pleasure. The vast majority of humans can survive perfectly well eating a plant-based diet (example: ME!). Since it is a CHOICE for humans to eat meat, then we must be doing it for pleasure at the expense of a sentient life. That is something I fundamentally disagree with and think should end.
All domesticated animals can be kept as companions, including pigs, cows, and chickens. There is no need logically to "kill off" the entire species just because I don't choose to eat them. As the demand for meat slows, farms will slow the reproduction rate of these types of animals, so the needs to be no "kill off". In the end, the animal population will be smaller, but that might not be such as bad thing.
Depending on which definition of "sentient" you use, you're either not going to be able to prove it, or you're ignoring the fact that plants can also have a measure of sentience. If you're going by self-awareness, we don't know if all animals ARE self-aware, and if you're going by capacity for sensation, many plants react to stimuli in a way that would suggest just such a thing. In other words, what makes a plant less valuable than an animal, by your logic?
You can't say we shouldn't kill animals because it's cruel and then discuss keeping them as pets. Keeping them as pets implies bending them to our will, a form of slavery, if you will. Unless they're free to wander, at which point they're capable of trespass and property damage. Do we incarcerate them at this point? They can't have rights as a legal entity without responsibility as one.
Wait, your best response is that plants are "sentient" under some weird definition of sentience? I think that we can all agree that plants are entirely different from animals, and we are talking about animals here. The weakness of your defense shows itself!
With regards to the "pet" thing, I don't have pets, I have companion animals that I care for just like I would a child. They are my responsibility, not my "slave", because I choose that burden for myself. I feed my dogs good food, plays, teach, and give medical care to. As I would a child. Humans CHOSE to domestic animals, and thus all domesticated animals are our responsibility, not our slaves.
sen·tient [sen-shuhnt] Show IPA adjective 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
That's not a weird definition of sentience. Perception by the senses, or conscious. Plants can perceive things via senses, a good example would be a venus flytrap, which uses sensation to respond to the stimulus of a bug landing on it to close and eat it.
Consciousness, well, I'm not entirely qualified on that one, but I'd bet there's some hefty studies.
As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
I don't think you're correct in your interpretation of that definition of "sentience". You need to consider the word "perception". Is it accurate to say that plants "perceive" via their senses? They might respond to sensory stimuli, as in your example, but there is a clear difference between responding to sensory input and perceiving sensory input. I don't think you can just randomly presume an alternate meaning of "perception". A Venus Flytrap responding automatically to a stimulus is not a clear example of perception, consciousness, or sentience.
Since you're pretty familiar with the dictionary, you probably know that "perception" entails consciousness. Perception (Perceive) 1) a: to attain awareness or understanding of; b: to regard as being such; 2) to become aware through the senses.
A thing doesn't perceive just because it responds to input via sensory stimulation. Notice how "perception" is totally contingent on consciousness, or "awareness"? Nothing about a plant shutting on a fly it "senses" suggests "sentience". If I made a rubber limb with a functional reflex circuit out of synthetic motor and sensory neurons -- and if it responded functionally to sensory input -- could I call it a sentient thing? Seems like I could by your Venus Flytrap example...
In any case I'd have to agree that your counter that "plants are sentient too" is pretty weak, if that's in fact what you were saying
I wouldn't eat dog meat because I love dogs and have always kept them as pets. At the same time, if you're raised with thinking of them as food, then they are food. It's all perspective and I don't see anything wrong with cultures that eat dog meat. Same as any other animal in reality.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
Why should we care, though? It's logistically impossible to treat all animals as humans. Would you prefer for all the livestock to be killed off and wasted, or should we subsidize the upkeep of the animals without getting any use out of them?
If you look at it reasonably, they can't be given sufficient legal rights to be anything but property, as they're incapable of meeting societally functional levels of legal responsibility. You can't evict them or make them pay rent in any way that wouldn't be considered unethical if they're treated as legal entities.
Ethically, we either kill off entire species, or continue getting use out of them as under the current system. It's not perfect, but I can't see it being better to wipe them all out, and it's not really feasible to keep them around without taking advantage of animal products.
We should care because animals are sentient beings. I disagree that it is impossible to treat all animals with respect, which means not killing them for our own pleasure. The vast majority of humans can survive perfectly well eating a plant-based diet (example: ME!). Since it is a CHOICE for humans to eat meat, then we must be doing it for pleasure at the expense of a sentient life. That is something I fundamentally disagree with and think should end.
All domesticated animals can be kept as companions, including pigs, cows, and chickens. There is no need logically to "kill off" the entire species just because I don't choose to eat them. As the demand for meat slows, farms will slow the reproduction rate of these types of animals, so the needs to be no "kill off". In the end, the animal population will be smaller, but that might not be such as bad thing.
Depending on which definition of "sentient" you use, you're either not going to be able to prove it, or you're ignoring the fact that plants can also have a measure of sentience. If you're going by self-awareness, we don't know if all animals ARE self-aware, and if you're going by capacity for sensation, many plants react to stimuli in a way that would suggest just such a thing. In other words, what makes a plant less valuable than an animal, by your logic?
You can't say we shouldn't kill animals because it's cruel and then discuss keeping them as pets. Keeping them as pets implies bending them to our will, a form of slavery, if you will. Unless they're free to wander, at which point they're capable of trespass and property damage. Do we incarcerate them at this point? They can't have rights as a legal entity without responsibility as one.
Wait, your best response is that plants are "sentient" under some weird definition of sentience? I think that we can all agree that plants are entirely different from animals, and we are talking about animals here. The weakness of your defense shows itself!
With regards to the "pet" thing, I don't have pets, I have companion animals that I care for just like I would a child. They are my responsibility, not my "slave", because I choose that burden for myself. I feed my dogs good food, plays, teach, and give medical care to. As I would a child. Humans CHOSE to domestic animals, and thus all domesticated animals are our responsibility, not our slaves.
sen·tient [sen-shuhnt] Show IPA adjective 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
That's not a weird definition of sentience. Perception by the senses, or conscious. Plants can perceive things via senses, a good example would be a venus flytrap, which uses sensation to respond to the stimulus of a bug landing on it to close and eat it.
Consciousness, well, I'm not entirely qualified on that one, but I'd bet there's some hefty studies.
As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
The "consciousness" part is key. It is not reasonable to argue that plants have consciousness, while it is completely reasonable to argue that animals have consciousness. Stop relying on the "plants" argument this is a discussion about animals.
My dogs are NOT slaves because I do not extract labor from them, like one would a slave. I feed, house, and care for them regardless.
How do you prove consciousness, exactly? Hell, science is still having epic trouble determining when to treat humans as conscious and legal entities, so how do we do it with animals?
Just because you dislike the plants argument doesn't make it invalid. If there's something demonstrably wrong with that argument, please feel free to show me empirical evidence. Either we do or do not have the right to exploit other life for our own well-being.
Also, you say your pets aren't slaves because you don't extract labor from them. Slavery isn't about the use, it's about the ownership. Or is it ok to own a person as long as you only make them do things you assume they like?
See my reply about consciousness to dmfg's comment (above).
And wait! My dogs are now "consciousness" to "care" about being "owned" by me? You can't have it both ways!
And for the record, despite what the government says, I do not own the companion animals that live with me.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
Why should we care, though? It's logistically impossible to treat all animals as humans. Would you prefer for all the livestock to be killed off and wasted, or should we subsidize the upkeep of the animals without getting any use out of them?
If you look at it reasonably, they can't be given sufficient legal rights to be anything but property, as they're incapable of meeting societally functional levels of legal responsibility. You can't evict them or make them pay rent in any way that wouldn't be considered unethical if they're treated as legal entities.
Ethically, we either kill off entire species, or continue getting use out of them as under the current system. It's not perfect, but I can't see it being better to wipe them all out, and it's not really feasible to keep them around without taking advantage of animal products.
We should care because animals are sentient beings. I disagree that it is impossible to treat all animals with respect, which means not killing them for our own pleasure. The vast majority of humans can survive perfectly well eating a plant-based diet (example: ME!). Since it is a CHOICE for humans to eat meat, then we must be doing it for pleasure at the expense of a sentient life. That is something I fundamentally disagree with and think should end.
All domesticated animals can be kept as companions, including pigs, cows, and chickens. There is no need logically to "kill off" the entire species just because I don't choose to eat them. As the demand for meat slows, farms will slow the reproduction rate of these types of animals, so the needs to be no "kill off". In the end, the animal population will be smaller, but that might not be such as bad thing.
Depending on which definition of "sentient" you use, you're either not going to be able to prove it, or you're ignoring the fact that plants can also have a measure of sentience. If you're going by self-awareness, we don't know if all animals ARE self-aware, and if you're going by capacity for sensation, many plants react to stimuli in a way that would suggest just such a thing. In other words, what makes a plant less valuable than an animal, by your logic?
You can't say we shouldn't kill animals because it's cruel and then discuss keeping them as pets. Keeping them as pets implies bending them to our will, a form of slavery, if you will. Unless they're free to wander, at which point they're capable of trespass and property damage. Do we incarcerate them at this point? They can't have rights as a legal entity without responsibility as one.
Wait, your best response is that plants are "sentient" under some weird definition of sentience? I think that we can all agree that plants are entirely different from animals, and we are talking about animals here. The weakness of your defense shows itself!
With regards to the "pet" thing, I don't have pets, I have companion animals that I care for just like I would a child. They are my responsibility, not my "slave", because I choose that burden for myself. I feed my dogs good food, plays, teach, and give medical care to. As I would a child. Humans CHOSE to domestic animals, and thus all domesticated animals are our responsibility, not our slaves.
sen·tient [sen-shuhnt] Show IPA adjective 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
That's not a weird definition of sentience. Perception by the senses, or conscious. Plants can perceive things via senses, a good example would be a venus flytrap, which uses sensation to respond to the stimulus of a bug landing on it to close and eat it.
Consciousness, well, I'm not entirely qualified on that one, but I'd bet there's some hefty studies.
As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
I don't think you're correct in your interpretation of that definition of "sentience". You need to consider the word "perception". Is it accurate to say that plants "perceive" via their senses? They might respond to sensory stimuli, as in your example, but there is a clear difference between responding to sensory input and perceiving sensory input. I don't think you can just randomly presume an alternate meaning of "perception". A Venus Flytrap responding automatically to a stimulus is not a clear example of perception, consciousness, or sentience.
Since you're pretty familiar with the dictionary, you probably know that "perception" entails consciousness. Perception (Perceive) 1) a: to attain awareness or understanding of; b: to regard as being such; 2) to become aware through the senses.
A thing doesn't perceive just because it responds to input via sensory stimulation. Notice how "perception" is totally contingent on consciousness, or "awareness"? Nothing about a plant shutting on a fly it "senses" suggests "sentience". If I made a rubber limb with a functional reflex circuit out of synthetic motor and sensory neurons -- and if it responded functionally to sensory input -- could I call it a sentient thing? Seems like I could by your Venus Flytrap example...
In any case I'd have to agree that your counter that "plants are sentient too" is pretty weak, if that's in fact what you were saying
It's not what I was saying, but I appreciate you actually responding with some sort of valid debate. My point was that we can't prove one way or the other with either, at least not in a satisfactory way, so people telling me there's a significant ethical difference between one and the other needs to demonstrate such, or not use their opinion on the subject as some sort of reason I should agree.
The only thing that can be demonstrably proven is that every human who eats exploits other forms of life that we share a planet with for their own well-being, beyond that, it's all opinion at this point, and forcing those on people is horrendous.
More than anything, I think it's ridiculous when people suggest that we should give animals rights within a system where they cannot accept the responsibilities that go with those rights. There's certainly no rational way to go about it.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
Why should we care, though? It's logistically impossible to treat all animals as humans. Would you prefer for all the livestock to be killed off and wasted, or should we subsidize the upkeep of the animals without getting any use out of them?
If you look at it reasonably, they can't be given sufficient legal rights to be anything but property, as they're incapable of meeting societally functional levels of legal responsibility. You can't evict them or make them pay rent in any way that wouldn't be considered unethical if they're treated as legal entities.
Ethically, we either kill off entire species, or continue getting use out of them as under the current system. It's not perfect, but I can't see it being better to wipe them all out, and it's not really feasible to keep them around without taking advantage of animal products.
We should care because animals are sentient beings. I disagree that it is impossible to treat all animals with respect, which means not killing them for our own pleasure. The vast majority of humans can survive perfectly well eating a plant-based diet (example: ME!). Since it is a CHOICE for humans to eat meat, then we must be doing it for pleasure at the expense of a sentient life. That is something I fundamentally disagree with and think should end.
All domesticated animals can be kept as companions, including pigs, cows, and chickens. There is no need logically to "kill off" the entire species just because I don't choose to eat them. As the demand for meat slows, farms will slow the reproduction rate of these types of animals, so the needs to be no "kill off". In the end, the animal population will be smaller, but that might not be such as bad thing.
Depending on which definition of "sentient" you use, you're either not going to be able to prove it, or you're ignoring the fact that plants can also have a measure of sentience. If you're going by self-awareness, we don't know if all animals ARE self-aware, and if you're going by capacity for sensation, many plants react to stimuli in a way that would suggest just such a thing. In other words, what makes a plant less valuable than an animal, by your logic?
You can't say we shouldn't kill animals because it's cruel and then discuss keeping them as pets. Keeping them as pets implies bending them to our will, a form of slavery, if you will. Unless they're free to wander, at which point they're capable of trespass and property damage. Do we incarcerate them at this point? They can't have rights as a legal entity without responsibility as one.
Wait, your best response is that plants are "sentient" under some weird definition of sentience? I think that we can all agree that plants are entirely different from animals, and we are talking about animals here. The weakness of your defense shows itself!
With regards to the "pet" thing, I don't have pets, I have companion animals that I care for just like I would a child. They are my responsibility, not my "slave", because I choose that burden for myself. I feed my dogs good food, plays, teach, and give medical care to. As I would a child. Humans CHOSE to domestic animals, and thus all domesticated animals are our responsibility, not our slaves.
sen·tient [sen-shuhnt] Show IPA adjective 1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
That's not a weird definition of sentience. Perception by the senses, or conscious. Plants can perceive things via senses, a good example would be a venus flytrap, which uses sensation to respond to the stimulus of a bug landing on it to close and eat it.
Consciousness, well, I'm not entirely qualified on that one, but I'd bet there's some hefty studies.
As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
The "consciousness" part is key. It is not reasonable to argue that plants have consciousness, while it is completely reasonable to argue that animals have consciousness. Stop relying on the "plants" argument this is a discussion about animals.
My dogs are NOT slaves because I do not extract labor from them, like one would a slave. I feed, house, and care for them regardless.
How do you prove consciousness, exactly? Hell, science is still having epic trouble determining when to treat humans as conscious and legal entities, so how do we do it with animals?
Just because you dislike the plants argument doesn't make it invalid. If there's something demonstrably wrong with that argument, please feel free to show me empirical evidence. Either we do or do not have the right to exploit other life for our own well-being.
Also, you say your pets aren't slaves because you don't extract labor from them. Slavery isn't about the use, it's about the ownership. Or is it ok to own a person as long as you only make them do things you assume they like?
See my reply about consciousness to dmfg's comment (above).
And wait! My dogs are now "consciousness" to "care" about being "owned" by me? You can't have it both ways!
And for the record, despite what the government says, I do not own the companion animals that live with me.
I'm NOT saying they're conscious. You are. You're the one saying they care and we have an ethical responsibility to treat them better than plants, but turning around and justifying slavery.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
Serious question: have you ever lived with an animal (dog/cat/etc.)? If so, I think you would notice that each animal has its own personality. A personality based on nature and nurture, just like humans!
I have seen my dogs do crazy smart things. They have figured out, WITHOUT training, how to open doors, steal food, and even try to disguise their stealing of food! Animals absolutely have conscious thought!
My mother kept a lot of cats, dogs and chickens, though I wasn't particularly attached to them. My view of this subject is mostly based on neurobiology rather than my interpretations of what my mum's menagerie were doing.
Thing is, there's a separation between "consciousness" and "problem solving ability", and one does not necessarily imply the other. You could write a computer program that could solve incredibly complex problems, even in ways that seem innovative to an observer who is unaware of how it works, but a computer program doesn't have "consciousness".
Here's the thing - what you really want to do, is to be able to ask your dog "are you conscious of self?" "do you feel pain?" "do you love your owner?" etc. The problem is, we are not able to teach dogs concepts at this level - we're only really able to train them that if they receive X stimulus, and perform Y action, they are rewarded.
So we're not able to communicate with animals on a (scientifically) meaningful level, and instead we're forced to interpret their responses through our own expectations of what those responses mean. This is a pretty reasonable thing to do for humans communicating with humans, since you can put yourself in the other person's shoes and think "if I did that, it would mean ...", and reasonably expect it to be true since our brains are sufficiently similar.
The problem is when we're forced to do that with animals. Then we're forcing human thinking onto an animal's actions - "if I were my dog doing X, that means I'd be thinking Y". It's not necessarily a valid step to take.
Animal nervous systems are wired up rather differently to ours, with proportionally much more of their actions dependent on simple reflexes compared to humans whose brains can directly control limb actions. You've probably heard about the chicken that had its head and most of its brain cut off and survived for 9 months, able to carry out most activities of living such as walking, running, digestion, pooing, etc. Experiments on decerebrate cats shows that cats are also able to walk and adjust their speed without the part of the brain thought to be important for conscious thought.
In essence, don't underestimate just how much is possible without conscious thought - even complex, coordinated movements in response to a changing stimulus are possible. Now that's not evidence that animals lack consciousness. It's just a caution against what evidence there is to suggest they do have consciousness.
I appreciate your well written and thoughtful reply, but I just disagree. It seems to me the problem is that you cannot prove that animals are NOT consciousness. I have to think (from my experiences) and believe (from what I've read) that animals are conscious, and thus I don't want to kill them for food. You can disagree, but it appears that no one can "conclusively" prove it either way. Wouldn't you want to error on the side of caution and not eat animals? Despite no "proof"?
And you saying this justifies my argument that you shouldn't exploit plants either. You can't prove THEY aren't conscious, so shouldn't you err on the side of caution and starve?
My whole point is that the arguments used to try and push the "ethics" of a vegan lifestyle on other people are grounded in nothing but sentiment, and you can use the same arguments to suggest that starvation is the only ethical choice.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
Serious question: have you ever lived with an animal (dog/cat/etc.)? If so, I think you would notice that each animal has its own personality. A personality based on nature and nurture, just like humans!
I have seen my dogs do crazy smart things. They have figured out, WITHOUT training, how to open doors, steal food, and even try to disguise their stealing of food! Animals absolutely have conscious thought!
My mother kept a lot of cats, dogs and chickens, though I wasn't particularly attached to them. My view of this subject is mostly based on neurobiology rather than my interpretations of what my mum's menagerie were doing.
Thing is, there's a separation between "consciousness" and "problem solving ability", and one does not necessarily imply the other. You could write a computer program that could solve incredibly complex problems, even in ways that seem innovative to an observer who is unaware of how it works, but a computer program doesn't have "consciousness".
Here's the thing - what you really want to do, is to be able to ask your dog "are you conscious of self?" "do you feel pain?" "do you love your owner?" etc. The problem is, we are not able to teach dogs concepts at this level - we're only really able to train them that if they receive X stimulus, and perform Y action, they are rewarded.
So we're not able to communicate with animals on a (scientifically) meaningful level, and instead we're forced to interpret their responses through our own expectations of what those responses mean. This is a pretty reasonable thing to do for humans communicating with humans, since you can put yourself in the other person's shoes and think "if I did that, it would mean ...", and reasonably expect it to be true since our brains are sufficiently similar.
The problem is when we're forced to do that with animals. Then we're forcing human thinking onto an animal's actions - "if I were my dog doing X, that means I'd be thinking Y". It's not necessarily a valid step to take.
Animal nervous systems are wired up rather differently to ours, with proportionally much more of their actions dependent on simple reflexes compared to humans whose brains can directly control limb actions. You've probably heard about the chicken that had its head and most of its brain cut off and survived for 9 months, able to carry out most activities of living such as walking, running, digestion, pooing, etc. Experiments on decerebrate cats shows that cats are also able to walk and adjust their speed without the part of the brain thought to be important for conscious thought.
In essence, don't underestimate just how much is possible without conscious thought - even complex, coordinated movements in response to a changing stimulus are possible. Now that's not evidence that animals lack consciousness. It's just a caution against what evidence there is to suggest they do have consciousness.
I appreciate your well written and thoughtful reply, but I just disagree. It seems to me the problem is that you cannot prove that animals are NOT consciousness. I have to think (from my experiences) and believe (from what I've read) that animals are conscious, and thus I don't want to kill them for food. You can disagree, but it appears that no one can "conclusively" prove it either way. Wouldn't you want to error on the side of caution and not eat animals? Despite no "proof"?
Oh that's fine, and I'm not actually trying to change your mind! I just happen to like the topic of consciousness :> really it's a topic where 2 people can look at the exact same data and possibly come to complete opposite conclusions.
Personally, that possibility doesn't have a strong enough effect on me to make me change my meat eating habits. But who knows what the research of tomorrow will bring.
At what point do you draw the line of what's acceptable to eat? Lets assume neantherthals had survived to this time, I'd guess we wouldn't be eating them. What about apes and monkeys? Is it about intelligence or simply "closeness" to ourself in different regards?
Hence I have no problem eating a cow but would never eat a dog. (Never say never but I would prefer not to.) Humans have domesticided some animals for their talants as living beings, and some for their talants of providing food.
By simplifying it and say "It is either okay to eat animals--dogs included. Or it's not okay to eat animals." Is an error for me, because Humans are animals too. So what you are then saying is "We cant eat meat because we are made of meat ourselves and what would stop us from feasting on eachother?!?!?"
You might call me a racist for favouring some animals to live a long and prosperous life while others are made to make sure the favoured animals will live their long and prosperous life.
I'm a vegetarian, and also a veterinary medicine student.
I don't recognize dog meat as inherently unethical by any means. There is little reason to distinguish a dog's life as being more valuable than a pig's life. So as I'm not against people raising and killing pigs for meat in principle, i am not against the raising of dogs for meat in principle either.
However, the conditions under which meat dogs are kept and raised are the big problem. In practice, the vast majority of dog meat production facilities run under dismal welfare conditions. However, this is the case with a lot of meat production facilities in East Asia and a lot of the world, regardless of animal species..
There is no justification for favouring dogs over animals like pigs. The real issues are always to do with living conditions and slaughter methods.
Thanks for the debate. I am vegan and going to stay that way the rest of my life. I have no regrets and feel I am going the right thing. I hope you had fun in this discussion, and keep open minds to veganism and being vegan in the future!
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
Serious question: have you ever lived with an animal (dog/cat/etc.)? If so, I think you would notice that each animal has its own personality. A personality based on nature and nurture, just like humans!
I have seen my dogs do crazy smart things. They have figured out, WITHOUT training, how to open doors, steal food, and even try to disguise their stealing of food! Animals absolutely have conscious thought!
My mother kept a lot of cats, dogs and chickens, though I wasn't particularly attached to them. My view of this subject is mostly based on neurobiology rather than my interpretations of what my mum's menagerie were doing.
Thing is, there's a separation between "consciousness" and "problem solving ability", and one does not necessarily imply the other. You could write a computer program that could solve incredibly complex problems, even in ways that seem innovative to an observer who is unaware of how it works, but a computer program doesn't have "consciousness".
Here's the thing - what you really want to do, is to be able to ask your dog "are you conscious of self?" "do you feel pain?" "do you love your owner?" etc. The problem is, we are not able to teach dogs concepts at this level - we're only really able to train them that if they receive X stimulus, and perform Y action, they are rewarded.
So we're not able to communicate with animals on a (scientifically) meaningful level, and instead we're forced to interpret their responses through our own expectations of what those responses mean. This is a pretty reasonable thing to do for humans communicating with humans, since you can put yourself in the other person's shoes and think "if I did that, it would mean ...", and reasonably expect it to be true since our brains are sufficiently similar.
The problem is when we're forced to do that with animals. Then we're forcing human thinking onto an animal's actions - "if I were my dog doing X, that means I'd be thinking Y". It's not necessarily a valid step to take.
Animal nervous systems are wired up rather differently to ours, with proportionally much more of their actions dependent on simple reflexes compared to humans whose brains can directly control limb actions. You've probably heard about the chicken that had its head and most of its brain cut off and survived for 9 months, able to carry out most activities of living such as walking, running, digestion, pooing, etc. Experiments on decerebrate cats shows that cats are also able to walk and adjust their speed without the part of the brain thought to be important for conscious thought.
In essence, don't underestimate just how much is possible without conscious thought - even complex, coordinated movements in response to a changing stimulus are possible. Now that's not evidence that animals lack consciousness. It's just a caution against what evidence there is to suggest they do have consciousness.
I appreciate your well written and thoughtful reply, but I just disagree. It seems to me the problem is that you cannot prove that animals are NOT consciousness. I have to think (from my experiences) and believe (from what I've read) that animals are conscious, and thus I don't want to kill them for food. You can disagree, but it appears that no one can "conclusively" prove it either way. Wouldn't you want to error on the side of caution and not eat animals? Despite no "proof"?
On April 16 2012 01:27 StickyFlower wrote: A dog has personality. A cow lack it.
Hence I have no problem eating a cow but would never eat a dog. (Never say never but I would prefer not to.) Humans have domesticided some animals for their talants as living beings, and some for their talants of providing food.
By simplifying it and say "It is either okay to eat animals--dogs included. Or it's not okay to eat animals." Is an error for me, because Humans are animals too. So what you are then saying is "We cant eat meat because we are made of meat ourselves and what would stop us from feasting on eachother?!?!?"
You might call me a racist for favouring some animals to live a long and prosperous life while others are made to make sure the favoured animals will live their long and prosperous life.
Many people that owns cows, horses, pigs and so on would disagree that they don't have personalities. How much time have you spent with a cow? It seems very arbitrary to base your belief that one animal is ok to eat and one not on that reason.
On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote: As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
I really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol.
On April 16 2012 01:29 SolonTLG wrote: JingleHell and dmfg:
Thanks for the debate. I am vegan and going to stay that way the rest of my life. I have no regrets and feel I am going the right thing. I hope you had fun in this discussion, and keep open minds to veganism and being vegan in the future!
I need to go to work now
VEGAN 2012!!!
I'm not trying to change your mind either, hope I didn't give that impression. I just don't like the arguments used. For me, it's like religion. Do what you want, but don't expect others to agree without something objective.
For the record, I'm against cruelty to animals, and don't mind having pets at all. I'm just also a realist with a bizarre sort of worldview.
On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote: As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
I really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol.
My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law.
On April 16 2012 01:20 JingleHell wrote: I'm NOT saying they're conscious. You are. You're the one saying they care and we have an ethical responsibility to treat them better than plants, but turning around and justifying slavery.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
Serious question: have you ever lived with an animal (dog/cat/etc.)? If so, I think you would notice that each animal has its own personality. A personality based on nature and nurture, just like humans!
I have seen my dogs do crazy smart things. They have figured out, WITHOUT training, how to open doors, steal food, and even try to disguise their stealing of food! Animals absolutely have conscious thought!
My mother kept a lot of cats, dogs and chickens, though I wasn't particularly attached to them. My view of this subject is mostly based on neurobiology rather than my interpretations of what my mum's menagerie were doing.
Thing is, there's a separation between "consciousness" and "problem solving ability", and one does not necessarily imply the other. You could write a computer program that could solve incredibly complex problems, even in ways that seem innovative to an observer who is unaware of how it works, but a computer program doesn't have "consciousness".
Here's the thing - what you really want to do, is to be able to ask your dog "are you conscious of self?" "do you feel pain?" "do you love your owner?" etc. The problem is, we are not able to teach dogs concepts at this level - we're only really able to train them that if they receive X stimulus, and perform Y action, they are rewarded.
So we're not able to communicate with animals on a (scientifically) meaningful level, and instead we're forced to interpret their responses through our own expectations of what those responses mean. This is a pretty reasonable thing to do for humans communicating with humans, since you can put yourself in the other person's shoes and think "if I did that, it would mean ...", and reasonably expect it to be true since our brains are sufficiently similar.
The problem is when we're forced to do that with animals. Then we're forcing human thinking onto an animal's actions - "if I were my dog doing X, that means I'd be thinking Y". It's not necessarily a valid step to take.
Animal nervous systems are wired up rather differently to ours, with proportionally much more of their actions dependent on simple reflexes compared to humans whose brains can directly control limb actions. You've probably heard about the chicken that had its head and most of its brain cut off and survived for 9 months, able to carry out most activities of living such as walking, running, digestion, pooing, etc. Experiments on decerebrate cats shows that cats are also able to walk and adjust their speed without the part of the brain thought to be important for conscious thought.
In essence, don't underestimate just how much is possible without conscious thought - even complex, coordinated movements in response to a changing stimulus are possible. Now that's not evidence that animals lack consciousness. It's just a caution against what evidence there is to suggest they do have consciousness.
I appreciate your well written and thoughtful reply, but I just disagree. It seems to me the problem is that you cannot prove that animals are NOT consciousness. I have to think (from my experiences) and believe (from what I've read) that animals are conscious, and thus I don't want to kill them for food. You can disagree, but it appears that no one can "conclusively" prove it either way. Wouldn't you want to error on the side of caution and not eat animals? Despite no "proof"?
And you saying this justifies my argument that you shouldn't exploit plants either. You can't prove THEY aren't conscious, so shouldn't you err on the side of caution and starve?
My whole point is that the arguments used to try and push the "ethics" of a vegan lifestyle on other people are grounded in nothing but sentiment, and you can use the same arguments to suggest that starvation is the only ethical choice.
I think you'd have a hard time arguing that plants are "sentient" or "conscious" or whichever word you want to use to that effect.
Although consciousness/sentience isn't well defined, I think most people would say that the key factor is the idea of a "subjective experience" - in other words, the idea that there exists a "self". I don't particularly like the definition you quoted, because "perceive" merely implies that there is a "self" that does the perceiving, rather than explicitly stating so.
I don't know of any plants that even have the biological mechanisms to monitor all (or even some) parts of the plant for damage. Without such a mechanism, the plant cannot recognise "self", and so cannot be conscious or sentient.
On April 16 2012 01:27 StickyFlower wrote: A dog has personality. A cow lack it.
Hence I have no problem eating a cow but would never eat a dog. (Never say never but I would prefer not to.) Humans have domesticided some animals for their talants as living beings, and some for their talants of providing food.
By simplifying it and say "It is either okay to eat animals--dogs included. Or it's not okay to eat animals." Is an error for me, because Humans are animals too. So what you are then saying is "We cant eat meat because we are made of meat ourselves and what would stop us from feasting on eachother?!?!?"
You might call me a racist for favouring some animals to live a long and prosperous life while others are made to make sure the favoured animals will live their long and prosperous life.
You don't eat humans for survival reasons.
A society that eats its own survives less than a society that doesn't. So we have evolved to be non-cannibalistic creatures because it improves our survival.
Favoritism amongst animals is a purely biased mindset and isn't something that is philosophically or morally sound.
On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote: As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
I really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol.
My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law.
Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner.
On April 16 2012 01:27 StickyFlower wrote: A dog has personality. A cow lack it.
Hence I have no problem eating a cow but would never eat a dog. (Never say never but I would prefer not to.) Humans have domesticided some animals for their talants as living beings, and some for their talants of providing food.
By simplifying it and say "It is either okay to eat animals--dogs included. Or it's not okay to eat animals." Is an error for me, because Humans are animals too. So what you are then saying is "We cant eat meat because we are made of meat ourselves and what would stop us from feasting on eachother?!?!?"
You might call me a racist for favouring some animals to live a long and prosperous life while others are made to make sure the favoured animals will live their long and prosperous life.
Many people that owns cows, horses, pigs and so on would disagree that they don't have personalities. How much time have you spent with a cow? It seems very arbitrary to base your belief that one animal is ok to eat and one not on that reason.
Since Im born and raised on a farm. My neighbours have had cows and pigs all my life and I have had the pleasure to deal with them on a regular basis. I do say Cows dont have a charming personalities, because from my own experiance they realy dont. In all fairness pigs, can grow on you.
My uncle had 2 pigs that he took care for 2 years and they realy grew on him. He was almost reluctant to killing them and have a huge feast on them, luckely they tasted great.
Horses are in quite contrast to what some people thing, they do have souls. My sister have had horses for more then 20 years. I have myself ridden for a year and they are amazing animals. I wouldnt want to eat them, but then again they are not domesticided as food, they are domesticided as transportationdevices. Travelcompanions.
On April 16 2012 01:20 JingleHell wrote: I'm NOT saying they're conscious. You are. You're the one saying they care and we have an ethical responsibility to treat them better than plants, but turning around and justifying slavery.
On April 16 2012 01:14 SolonTLG wrote:
On April 16 2012 01:06 dmfg wrote:
On April 16 2012 00:40 SolonTLG wrote:
On April 16 2012 00:29 dmfg wrote:
On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote:
On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote:
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
Serious question: have you ever lived with an animal (dog/cat/etc.)? If so, I think you would notice that each animal has its own personality. A personality based on nature and nurture, just like humans!
I have seen my dogs do crazy smart things. They have figured out, WITHOUT training, how to open doors, steal food, and even try to disguise their stealing of food! Animals absolutely have conscious thought!
My mother kept a lot of cats, dogs and chickens, though I wasn't particularly attached to them. My view of this subject is mostly based on neurobiology rather than my interpretations of what my mum's menagerie were doing.
Thing is, there's a separation between "consciousness" and "problem solving ability", and one does not necessarily imply the other. You could write a computer program that could solve incredibly complex problems, even in ways that seem innovative to an observer who is unaware of how it works, but a computer program doesn't have "consciousness".
Here's the thing - what you really want to do, is to be able to ask your dog "are you conscious of self?" "do you feel pain?" "do you love your owner?" etc. The problem is, we are not able to teach dogs concepts at this level - we're only really able to train them that if they receive X stimulus, and perform Y action, they are rewarded.
So we're not able to communicate with animals on a (scientifically) meaningful level, and instead we're forced to interpret their responses through our own expectations of what those responses mean. This is a pretty reasonable thing to do for humans communicating with humans, since you can put yourself in the other person's shoes and think "if I did that, it would mean ...", and reasonably expect it to be true since our brains are sufficiently similar.
The problem is when we're forced to do that with animals. Then we're forcing human thinking onto an animal's actions - "if I were my dog doing X, that means I'd be thinking Y". It's not necessarily a valid step to take.
Animal nervous systems are wired up rather differently to ours, with proportionally much more of their actions dependent on simple reflexes compared to humans whose brains can directly control limb actions. You've probably heard about the chicken that had its head and most of its brain cut off and survived for 9 months, able to carry out most activities of living such as walking, running, digestion, pooing, etc. Experiments on decerebrate cats shows that cats are also able to walk and adjust their speed without the part of the brain thought to be important for conscious thought.
In essence, don't underestimate just how much is possible without conscious thought - even complex, coordinated movements in response to a changing stimulus are possible. Now that's not evidence that animals lack consciousness. It's just a caution against what evidence there is to suggest they do have consciousness.
I appreciate your well written and thoughtful reply, but I just disagree. It seems to me the problem is that you cannot prove that animals are NOT consciousness. I have to think (from my experiences) and believe (from what I've read) that animals are conscious, and thus I don't want to kill them for food. You can disagree, but it appears that no one can "conclusively" prove it either way. Wouldn't you want to error on the side of caution and not eat animals? Despite no "proof"?
And you saying this justifies my argument that you shouldn't exploit plants either. You can't prove THEY aren't conscious, so shouldn't you err on the side of caution and starve?
My whole point is that the arguments used to try and push the "ethics" of a vegan lifestyle on other people are grounded in nothing but sentiment, and you can use the same arguments to suggest that starvation is the only ethical choice.
I think you'd have a hard time arguing that plants are "sentient" or "conscious" or whichever word you want to use to that effect.
Although consciousness/sentience isn't well defined, I think most people would say that the key factor is the idea of a "subjective experience" - in other words, the idea that there exists a "self". I don't particularly like the definition you quoted, because "perceive" merely implies that there is a "self" that does the perceiving, rather than explicitly stating so.
I don't know of any plants that even have the biological mechanisms to monitor all (or even some) parts of the plant for damage. Without such a mechanism, the plant cannot recognise "self", and so cannot be conscious or sentient.
Luckily, I'm not trying to prove the plants are conscious. I'm turning the "prove they AREN'T conscious" argument back.
Also, many plants are capable of responding to damage. Just because their mechanisms work differently from ours doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote: As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
I really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol.
My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law.
Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner.
Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok?
Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain?
They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain.
On April 16 2012 01:28 misspo wrote: How it is possible to have 861 peaple that think eat dog is ok? Sad day
I tought that new generation was more modern.
The modern generation is tolerand and rational, if you eat meat, there is no reason why you should discriminate what kind of meat. They're all animals, even tough some humans pet dogs, some dont, some humans pet cows and pigs, some don't.
On April 16 2012 01:27 StickyFlower wrote: A dog has personality. A cow lack it.
Hence I have no problem eating a cow but would never eat a dog. (Never say never but I would prefer not to.) Humans have domesticided some animals for their talants as living beings, and some for their talants of providing food.
By simplifying it and say "It is either okay to eat animals--dogs included. Or it's not okay to eat animals." Is an error for me, because Humans are animals too. So what you are then saying is "We cant eat meat because we are made of meat ourselves and what would stop us from feasting on eachother?!?!?"
You might call me a racist for favouring some animals to live a long and prosperous life while others are made to make sure the favoured animals will live their long and prosperous life.
You don't eat humans for survival reasons.
A society that eats its own survives less than a society that doesn't. So we have evolved to be non-cannibalistic creatures because it improves our survival.
Favoritism amongst animals is a purely biased mindset and isn't something that is philosophically or morally sound.
Sure you do, there are many examples of this. One of the most famous ones were a plane crash in south america (I think, not 100 % sure) where they fed on the passengers who had died to survive. There's been movies and books about it, but it's not a unique event.
On April 16 2012 01:27 StickyFlower wrote: A dog has personality. A cow lack it.
Hence I have no problem eating a cow but would never eat a dog. (Never say never but I would prefer not to.) Humans have domesticided some animals for their talants as living beings, and some for their talants of providing food.
By simplifying it and say "It is either okay to eat animals--dogs included. Or it's not okay to eat animals." Is an error for me, because Humans are animals too. So what you are then saying is "We cant eat meat because we are made of meat ourselves and what would stop us from feasting on eachother?!?!?"
You might call me a racist for favouring some animals to live a long and prosperous life while others are made to make sure the favoured animals will live their long and prosperous life.
Many people that owns cows, horses, pigs and so on would disagree that they don't have personalities. How much time have you spent with a cow? It seems very arbitrary to base your belief that one animal is ok to eat and one not on that reason.
Since Im born and raised on a farm. My neighbours have had cows and pigs all my life and I have had the pleasure to deal with them on a regular basis. I do say Cows dont have a charming personalities, because from my own experiance they realy dont. In all fairness pigs, can grow on you.
My uncle had 2 pigs that he took care for 2 years and they realy grew on him. He was almost reluctant to killing them and have a huge feast on them, luckely they tasted great.
Horses are in quite contrast to what some people thing, they do have souls. My sister have had horses for more then 20 years. I have myself ridden for a year and they are amazing animals. I wouldnt want to eat them, but then again they are not domesticided as food, they are domesticided as transportationdevices. Travelcompanions.
Good for you. There still many people that I've heard or read saying such things about cows. Just because they don't have glowing personalities doesn't mean it isn't there and it's still and incredible arbitrary reason to use and it doesn't make much sense regardless.
If you believe "sentience" and "consciousness" are the main and only reasons why we shouldn't eat dog meat, then just within this argument's limited parameters, taking these premises to the farthest edge, you'd be fine with eating brain dead people or anyone who's brain shows minimal activity and does not respond to outside stimulus. Stepping onto the very fine edge of reality and the hypothetical, and then taking a running leap, what if "sentience" was demonstrated only briefly in an entire organism's life? Or only twice? Ten times? Once every Feb 29th? How many units of "sentience" would you need before cooking you with garlic would become morally wrong?
Personally, i find the vegetarian argument (healthier, eco friendlier, morally justified ectect) very convincing, although i still eat meat out of selfish bigoted preference. That said, if you've already accepted eating beef/chicken/pork, then to arbitrarily give immunity to all dogs would be intellectually dishonest. Sentience and consciousness is trickier. I think most would recognize that on the spectrum of things, plants rank only a little past rocks. But in between plants and humans is a wide range. Where to draw the line? Plants that trap prey? Insects? Parasites? Mollusks? Starfish? Crabs? Lizards? Rodents?
On April 16 2012 01:27 StickyFlower wrote: A dog has personality. A cow lack it.
Hence I have no problem eating a cow but would never eat a dog. (Never say never but I would prefer not to.) Humans have domesticided some animals for their talants as living beings, and some for their talants of providing food.
By simplifying it and say "It is either okay to eat animals--dogs included. Or it's not okay to eat animals." Is an error for me, because Humans are animals too. So what you are then saying is "We cant eat meat because we are made of meat ourselves and what would stop us from feasting on eachother?!?!?"
You might call me a racist for favouring some animals to live a long and prosperous life while others are made to make sure the favoured animals will live their long and prosperous life.
On April 16 2012 01:37 lorkac wrote: You don't eat humans for survival reasons.
A society that eats its own survives less than a society that doesn't. So we have evolved to be non-cannibalistic creatures because it improves our survival.
Favoritism amongst animals is a purely biased mindset and isn't something that is philosophically or morally sound.
Its not realy unsound to speak of what the use the creature have. Humans didnt randomly pick some animals to keep as pets and others to eat when they needed the meat. Obviously cats are great for catching vermin like rats and mice. Dogs are great at hunting and guarding a perimiter. While cows , just as pigs, are bread to be eaten, they where domesticized for the soul purpose to be slaughtered when there was no other food around. They were the old version of a refrigirator.
On April 16 2012 01:20 JingleHell wrote: I'm NOT saying they're conscious. You are. You're the one saying they care and we have an ethical responsibility to treat them better than plants, but turning around and justifying slavery.
On April 16 2012 01:14 SolonTLG wrote:
On April 16 2012 01:06 dmfg wrote:
On April 16 2012 00:40 SolonTLG wrote:
On April 16 2012 00:29 dmfg wrote:
On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote:
On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote:
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
Serious question: have you ever lived with an animal (dog/cat/etc.)? If so, I think you would notice that each animal has its own personality. A personality based on nature and nurture, just like humans!
I have seen my dogs do crazy smart things. They have figured out, WITHOUT training, how to open doors, steal food, and even try to disguise their stealing of food! Animals absolutely have conscious thought!
My mother kept a lot of cats, dogs and chickens, though I wasn't particularly attached to them. My view of this subject is mostly based on neurobiology rather than my interpretations of what my mum's menagerie were doing.
Thing is, there's a separation between "consciousness" and "problem solving ability", and one does not necessarily imply the other. You could write a computer program that could solve incredibly complex problems, even in ways that seem innovative to an observer who is unaware of how it works, but a computer program doesn't have "consciousness".
Here's the thing - what you really want to do, is to be able to ask your dog "are you conscious of self?" "do you feel pain?" "do you love your owner?" etc. The problem is, we are not able to teach dogs concepts at this level - we're only really able to train them that if they receive X stimulus, and perform Y action, they are rewarded.
So we're not able to communicate with animals on a (scientifically) meaningful level, and instead we're forced to interpret their responses through our own expectations of what those responses mean. This is a pretty reasonable thing to do for humans communicating with humans, since you can put yourself in the other person's shoes and think "if I did that, it would mean ...", and reasonably expect it to be true since our brains are sufficiently similar.
The problem is when we're forced to do that with animals. Then we're forcing human thinking onto an animal's actions - "if I were my dog doing X, that means I'd be thinking Y". It's not necessarily a valid step to take.
Animal nervous systems are wired up rather differently to ours, with proportionally much more of their actions dependent on simple reflexes compared to humans whose brains can directly control limb actions. You've probably heard about the chicken that had its head and most of its brain cut off and survived for 9 months, able to carry out most activities of living such as walking, running, digestion, pooing, etc. Experiments on decerebrate cats shows that cats are also able to walk and adjust their speed without the part of the brain thought to be important for conscious thought.
In essence, don't underestimate just how much is possible without conscious thought - even complex, coordinated movements in response to a changing stimulus are possible. Now that's not evidence that animals lack consciousness. It's just a caution against what evidence there is to suggest they do have consciousness.
I appreciate your well written and thoughtful reply, but I just disagree. It seems to me the problem is that you cannot prove that animals are NOT consciousness. I have to think (from my experiences) and believe (from what I've read) that animals are conscious, and thus I don't want to kill them for food. You can disagree, but it appears that no one can "conclusively" prove it either way. Wouldn't you want to error on the side of caution and not eat animals? Despite no "proof"?
And you saying this justifies my argument that you shouldn't exploit plants either. You can't prove THEY aren't conscious, so shouldn't you err on the side of caution and starve?
My whole point is that the arguments used to try and push the "ethics" of a vegan lifestyle on other people are grounded in nothing but sentiment, and you can use the same arguments to suggest that starvation is the only ethical choice.
I think you'd have a hard time arguing that plants are "sentient" or "conscious" or whichever word you want to use to that effect.
Although consciousness/sentience isn't well defined, I think most people would say that the key factor is the idea of a "subjective experience" - in other words, the idea that there exists a "self". I don't particularly like the definition you quoted, because "perceive" merely implies that there is a "self" that does the perceiving, rather than explicitly stating so.
I don't know of any plants that even have the biological mechanisms to monitor all (or even some) parts of the plant for damage. Without such a mechanism, the plant cannot recognise "self", and so cannot be conscious or sentient.
Roots and branches grow around objects that obstruct them--unless the objects seems weak enough or small enough, then the tree just breaks through it. Bark hardens when there is a fire, to preserve moisture, unlike cut up timber that simply ignites. Vines (and all plants actually) grow towards the sun. As in they'll climb towards a position that is near the sun as not simply try to travel te hypotenuse towards the sun. Most plants grow better when they listen to music. Some communicate to each other by way of pollen.
If it tasted any good, it would be hypocritical to eat other animals like pigs, cow, chicken, horse, fish, venison (you name it) and then be adamant against dog meat. Hell the French even eat frog and snails.
On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote: As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
I really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol.
My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law.
Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner.
Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok?
Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain?
They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain.
Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything.
But scientifically I can of course not prove anything.
On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote: As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
I really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol.
My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law.
Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner.
Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok?
Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain?
They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain.
Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything.
But scientifically I can of course not prove anything.
Like I said, I do NOT have an ethical issue with keeping pets. I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans when they can't be (rationally) given societal responsibility to match the rights people claim they should have.
On April 16 2012 01:28 misspo wrote: How it is possible to have 861 peaple that think eat dog is ok? Sad day
I tought that new generation was more modern.
Because if you break it down, the stronger arguments in favor of recognizing the moral status of animals appeal to the concept of animal integrity (Bovenkirk et al. 2002). In line with that, it follows that if you're okay with eating animals as a permissible violation of animal integrity, then there is no underlying moral protection granted to any particular animal type. Why should there be? That's a question for you. Why is it that you could be okay with eating a cow, but not a dog? Is it that dogs seem to make better pets? That's about as strong of argument I can see, but even then, it's not strong because it doesn't appeal to animal integrity. in my opinion
On April 16 2012 01:28 misspo wrote: How it is possible to have 861 peaple that think eat dog is ok? Sad day
I tought that new generation was more modern.
Because if you break it down, the stronger arguments in favor of recognizing the moral status of animals appeal to the concept of animal integrity (Bovenkirk et al. 2002). In line with that, it follows that if you're okay with eating animals as a permissible violation of animal integrity, then there is no underlying moral protection granted to any particular animal type. Why should there be? That's a question for you. Why is it that you could be okay with eating a cow, but not a dog? Is it that dogs seem to make better pets? That's about as strong of argument I can see, but even then, it's not strong because it doesn't appeal to animal integrity. in my opinion
I actually know a person who had a pig for a pet once, too. They still eat pork.
On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote: As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
I really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol.
My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law.
Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner.
Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok?
Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain?
They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain.
Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything.
But scientifically I can of course not prove anything.
Like I said, I do NOT have an ethical issue with keeping pets. I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans when they can't be (rationally) given societal responsibility to match the rights people claim they should have.
On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote: As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
I really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol.
My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law.
Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner.
Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok?
Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain?
They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain.
Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything.
But scientifically I can of course not prove anything.
Like I said, I do NOT have an ethical issue with keeping pets. I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans when they can't be (rationally) given societal responsibility to match the rights people claim they should have.
On April 16 2012 01:28 misspo wrote: How it is possible to have 861 peaple that think eat dog is ok? Sad day
I tought that new generation was more modern.
Because they're not ignorant? The dogs being consumed in korea are not people's pet chihuahuas or golden retrievers. They are dogs born and bred for consumption. Tell me how that's any different than countless other animals we slaughter for sustenance everyday.
On April 16 2012 01:20 JingleHell wrote: I'm NOT saying they're conscious. You are. You're the one saying they care and we have an ethical responsibility to treat them better than plants, but turning around and justifying slavery.
On April 16 2012 01:14 SolonTLG wrote:
On April 16 2012 01:06 dmfg wrote:
On April 16 2012 00:40 SolonTLG wrote:
On April 16 2012 00:29 dmfg wrote:
On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote:
On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote:
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
Serious question: have you ever lived with an animal (dog/cat/etc.)? If so, I think you would notice that each animal has its own personality. A personality based on nature and nurture, just like humans!
I have seen my dogs do crazy smart things. They have figured out, WITHOUT training, how to open doors, steal food, and even try to disguise their stealing of food! Animals absolutely have conscious thought!
My mother kept a lot of cats, dogs and chickens, though I wasn't particularly attached to them. My view of this subject is mostly based on neurobiology rather than my interpretations of what my mum's menagerie were doing.
Thing is, there's a separation between "consciousness" and "problem solving ability", and one does not necessarily imply the other. You could write a computer program that could solve incredibly complex problems, even in ways that seem innovative to an observer who is unaware of how it works, but a computer program doesn't have "consciousness".
Here's the thing - what you really want to do, is to be able to ask your dog "are you conscious of self?" "do you feel pain?" "do you love your owner?" etc. The problem is, we are not able to teach dogs concepts at this level - we're only really able to train them that if they receive X stimulus, and perform Y action, they are rewarded.
So we're not able to communicate with animals on a (scientifically) meaningful level, and instead we're forced to interpret their responses through our own expectations of what those responses mean. This is a pretty reasonable thing to do for humans communicating with humans, since you can put yourself in the other person's shoes and think "if I did that, it would mean ...", and reasonably expect it to be true since our brains are sufficiently similar.
The problem is when we're forced to do that with animals. Then we're forcing human thinking onto an animal's actions - "if I were my dog doing X, that means I'd be thinking Y". It's not necessarily a valid step to take.
Animal nervous systems are wired up rather differently to ours, with proportionally much more of their actions dependent on simple reflexes compared to humans whose brains can directly control limb actions. You've probably heard about the chicken that had its head and most of its brain cut off and survived for 9 months, able to carry out most activities of living such as walking, running, digestion, pooing, etc. Experiments on decerebrate cats shows that cats are also able to walk and adjust their speed without the part of the brain thought to be important for conscious thought.
In essence, don't underestimate just how much is possible without conscious thought - even complex, coordinated movements in response to a changing stimulus are possible. Now that's not evidence that animals lack consciousness. It's just a caution against what evidence there is to suggest they do have consciousness.
I appreciate your well written and thoughtful reply, but I just disagree. It seems to me the problem is that you cannot prove that animals are NOT consciousness. I have to think (from my experiences) and believe (from what I've read) that animals are conscious, and thus I don't want to kill them for food. You can disagree, but it appears that no one can "conclusively" prove it either way. Wouldn't you want to error on the side of caution and not eat animals? Despite no "proof"?
And you saying this justifies my argument that you shouldn't exploit plants either. You can't prove THEY aren't conscious, so shouldn't you err on the side of caution and starve?
My whole point is that the arguments used to try and push the "ethics" of a vegan lifestyle on other people are grounded in nothing but sentiment, and you can use the same arguments to suggest that starvation is the only ethical choice.
I think you'd have a hard time arguing that plants are "sentient" or "conscious" or whichever word you want to use to that effect.
Although consciousness/sentience isn't well defined, I think most people would say that the key factor is the idea of a "subjective experience" - in other words, the idea that there exists a "self". I don't particularly like the definition you quoted, because "perceive" merely implies that there is a "self" that does the perceiving, rather than explicitly stating so.
I don't know of any plants that even have the biological mechanisms to monitor all (or even some) parts of the plant for damage. Without such a mechanism, the plant cannot recognise "self", and so cannot be conscious or sentient.
Roots and branches grow around objects that obstruct them--unless the objects seems weak enough or small enough, then the tree just breaks through it. Bark hardens when there is a fire, to preserve moisture, unlike cut up timber that simply ignites. Vines (and all plants actually) grow towards the sun. As in they'll climb towards a position that is near the sun as not simply try to travel te hypotenuse towards the sun. Most plants grow better when they listen to music. Some communicate to each other by way of pollen.
Plants are very much aware of themselves.
Let's just stick with "responses to damage", since any object can produce a stereotyped response to neutral/beneficial outside stimuli.
Water flows around objects blocking its path, unless the object is weak or it is given enough time, then the water just breaks through it. Ketchup softens and takes on more liquid-like properties when struck, to allow it to flow around attackers (!). Magnets move towards each other.
Anyway the bark hardening example is interesting, but it sounds like a localised response. A localised response such as "my hand is cut and a clot is forming to stop the bleeding" doesn't suggest any awareness of self. A whole body response such as "my hand is cut and I am now running away from the maniac with an axe who cut it" might (but not necessarily!) involve a notion of self.
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.
On April 16 2012 01:20 JingleHell wrote: I'm NOT saying they're conscious. You are. You're the one saying they care and we have an ethical responsibility to treat them better than plants, but turning around and justifying slavery.
On April 16 2012 01:14 SolonTLG wrote:
On April 16 2012 01:06 dmfg wrote:
On April 16 2012 00:40 SolonTLG wrote:
On April 16 2012 00:29 dmfg wrote:
On April 15 2012 23:24 SolonTLG wrote:
On April 15 2012 23:17 Nevermind86 wrote: [quote]
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
Serious question: have you ever lived with an animal (dog/cat/etc.)? If so, I think you would notice that each animal has its own personality. A personality based on nature and nurture, just like humans!
I have seen my dogs do crazy smart things. They have figured out, WITHOUT training, how to open doors, steal food, and even try to disguise their stealing of food! Animals absolutely have conscious thought!
My mother kept a lot of cats, dogs and chickens, though I wasn't particularly attached to them. My view of this subject is mostly based on neurobiology rather than my interpretations of what my mum's menagerie were doing.
Thing is, there's a separation between "consciousness" and "problem solving ability", and one does not necessarily imply the other. You could write a computer program that could solve incredibly complex problems, even in ways that seem innovative to an observer who is unaware of how it works, but a computer program doesn't have "consciousness".
Here's the thing - what you really want to do, is to be able to ask your dog "are you conscious of self?" "do you feel pain?" "do you love your owner?" etc. The problem is, we are not able to teach dogs concepts at this level - we're only really able to train them that if they receive X stimulus, and perform Y action, they are rewarded.
So we're not able to communicate with animals on a (scientifically) meaningful level, and instead we're forced to interpret their responses through our own expectations of what those responses mean. This is a pretty reasonable thing to do for humans communicating with humans, since you can put yourself in the other person's shoes and think "if I did that, it would mean ...", and reasonably expect it to be true since our brains are sufficiently similar.
The problem is when we're forced to do that with animals. Then we're forcing human thinking onto an animal's actions - "if I were my dog doing X, that means I'd be thinking Y". It's not necessarily a valid step to take.
Animal nervous systems are wired up rather differently to ours, with proportionally much more of their actions dependent on simple reflexes compared to humans whose brains can directly control limb actions. You've probably heard about the chicken that had its head and most of its brain cut off and survived for 9 months, able to carry out most activities of living such as walking, running, digestion, pooing, etc. Experiments on decerebrate cats shows that cats are also able to walk and adjust their speed without the part of the brain thought to be important for conscious thought.
In essence, don't underestimate just how much is possible without conscious thought - even complex, coordinated movements in response to a changing stimulus are possible. Now that's not evidence that animals lack consciousness. It's just a caution against what evidence there is to suggest they do have consciousness.
I appreciate your well written and thoughtful reply, but I just disagree. It seems to me the problem is that you cannot prove that animals are NOT consciousness. I have to think (from my experiences) and believe (from what I've read) that animals are conscious, and thus I don't want to kill them for food. You can disagree, but it appears that no one can "conclusively" prove it either way. Wouldn't you want to error on the side of caution and not eat animals? Despite no "proof"?
And you saying this justifies my argument that you shouldn't exploit plants either. You can't prove THEY aren't conscious, so shouldn't you err on the side of caution and starve?
My whole point is that the arguments used to try and push the "ethics" of a vegan lifestyle on other people are grounded in nothing but sentiment, and you can use the same arguments to suggest that starvation is the only ethical choice.
I think you'd have a hard time arguing that plants are "sentient" or "conscious" or whichever word you want to use to that effect.
Although consciousness/sentience isn't well defined, I think most people would say that the key factor is the idea of a "subjective experience" - in other words, the idea that there exists a "self". I don't particularly like the definition you quoted, because "perceive" merely implies that there is a "self" that does the perceiving, rather than explicitly stating so.
I don't know of any plants that even have the biological mechanisms to monitor all (or even some) parts of the plant for damage. Without such a mechanism, the plant cannot recognise "self", and so cannot be conscious or sentient.
Roots and branches grow around objects that obstruct them--unless the objects seems weak enough or small enough, then the tree just breaks through it. Bark hardens when there is a fire, to preserve moisture, unlike cut up timber that simply ignites. Vines (and all plants actually) grow towards the sun. As in they'll climb towards a position that is near the sun as not simply try to travel te hypotenuse towards the sun. Most plants grow better when they listen to music. Some communicate to each other by way of pollen.
Plants are very much aware of themselves.
Let's just stick with "responses to damage", since any object can produce a stereotyped response to neutral/beneficial outside stimuli.
Water flows around objects blocking its path, unless the object is weak or it is given enough time, then the water just breaks through it. Ketchup softens and takes on more liquid-like properties when struck, to allow it to flow around attackers (!). Magnets move towards each other.
Anyway the bark hardening example is interesting, but it sounds like a localised response. A localised response such as "my hand is cut and a clot is forming to stop the bleeding" doesn't suggest any awareness of self. A whole body response such as "my hand is cut and I am now running away from the maniac with an axe who cut it" might (but not necessarily!) involve a notion of self.
So you expect plants to respond in a way they're physiologically incapable of to prove awareness? Isn't that like saying humans aren't aware because we can't manifest telekinesis to prevent physical harm to self?
On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote: As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
I really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol.
My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law.
Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner.
Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok?
Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain?
They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain.
Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything.
But scientifically I can of course not prove anything.
Like I said, I do NOT have an ethical issue with keeping pets. I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans when they can't be (rationally) given societal responsibility to match the rights people claim they should have.
It's in response to emerging biotech-animal concerns, but it outlines a moral premise for judging animals. In this discussion it's not too useful since eating animals isn't likely considered to be a violation of animal integrity, but I figured you might want to read about animal ethics from a non-so-nonsensical perspective. Sometimes when people talk about animal morals stemming from animal rights, it does seem a little absurd, but I think animal morality in the context of animal integrity can be used in a number of useful ways
I don't think I'll ever eat dog meat unless I was to starve and I really wouldn't want other people to eat dog meat (unless they were starving themselves).
None the less, if I'm in some country in Asia and there are people eating dog somewhere near me, I won't go up to them, slap it out of their hands and start yelling at them. I'd keep to myself, maybe feeling a little sad, its the other person's choice, not mine.
On April 16 2012 00:51 JingleHell wrote: As for "pets vs slaves", if you're keeping it against it's will, regardless of how much you take care of it, or your use, it's still a slave. Back when human slavery was legal, slaves were treated as livestock, with the owner responsible for the medical well-being of their valuable property. If someone treated their slaves better, with decent food and medicine, to make them more productive, did that change the nature of them being kept?
I really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol.
My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law.
Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner.
Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok?
Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain?
They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain.
Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything.
But scientifically I can of course not prove anything.
Like I said, I do NOT have an ethical issue with keeping pets. I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans when they can't be (rationally) given societal responsibility to match the rights people claim they should have.
It's in response to emerging biotech-animal concerns, but it outlines a moral premise for judging animals. In this discussion it's not too useful since eating animals isn't likely considered to be a violation of animal integrity, but I figured you might want to read about animal ethics from a non-so-nonsensical perspective. Sometimes when people talk about animal morals stemming from animal rights, it does seem a little absurd, but I think animal morality in the context of animal integrity can be used in a number of useful ways
I'm working on it, but so far it seems to be a lot of waffle dedicated to the same arguments that people have been making already. Just because it's formatted well and uses impressive sounding language doesn't change the fact that it still boils down to "there's something ethically wrong with using other life for our own gains, but this time it sounds scientific!"
On April 16 2012 01:32 Sneakyz wrote: [quote] I really don't see what the difference would be in keeping a pet compared to keeping a child then? It's not like my dog runs away if I open the door, lol.
My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law.
Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner.
Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok?
Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain?
They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain.
Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything.
But scientifically I can of course not prove anything.
Like I said, I do NOT have an ethical issue with keeping pets. I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans when they can't be (rationally) given societal responsibility to match the rights people claim they should have.
It's in response to emerging biotech-animal concerns, but it outlines a moral premise for judging animals. In this discussion it's not too useful since eating animals isn't likely considered to be a violation of animal integrity, but I figured you might want to read about animal ethics from a non-so-nonsensical perspective. Sometimes when people talk about animal morals stemming from animal rights, it does seem a little absurd, but I think animal morality in the context of animal integrity can be used in a number of useful ways
I'm working on it, but so far it seems to be a lot of waffle dedicated to the same arguments that people have been making already. Just because it's formatted well and uses impressive sounding language doesn't change the fact that it still boils down to "there's something ethically wrong with using other life for our own gains, but this time it sounds scientific!"
Lol, this is a respected and peer-reviewed piece assembled by an academic research group, just so you know (not that that means anything alone, but you seem to be under the impression that it's just a random opinion piece). You didn't actually read it entirely, as you say, so maybe work to the conclusions before dismissing it. The "fluff" to which you refer is the background: it sets the stage for what is at stake when dealing with animal ethics, especially in areas of bio-engineering on animals, etc (which is why I said it's not entirely connected to the topic at hand: eating dogs)
On April 16 2012 02:31 JingleHell wrote:
Also, plenty of peer reviewed pieces assembled by research teams are a lot of waffle, and have plenty of equally peer reviewed dissent.
Well obviously some peer-reviewed pieces aren't very meaningful, but this one is. It's used as an exemplary piece on animal ethics in a bioethics course at a university. It wouldn't be chosen by the faculty if they agreed that it was "waffle".
On April 16 2012 02:31 JingleHell wrote:
I already said I haven't finished it, I wasn't aware this was just the background that I'm suffering through. I would have thought the "I'm working on it" statement implied a lack of finishing it so far, and a hope to do so.
Well to be honest your quick negative reaction sort of baffled me. It's pretty typical in peer-reviewed and especially in science literature to open with background on why the topic matters, what is at stake, where the confusion or uncertainty lies, what needs to be explored, etc. I admit I was confused when I read a response to a piece from someone who had not actually read the piece. My mistake.
My toddler does, there's a difference. Also, the child gains legal rights after reaching the point decided by law that they can also have legal responsibility for those rights. The animal never can attain legal responsibility within the law.
Sure, but my intention with that post was that most pets are not actually kept against their will, they want to be with their owner.
Can you prove that? Maybe they're just afraid they'd starve if they didn't stay around. Plenty of slaves didn't try to run away because they didn't want to starve or die of exposure trying to escape. Was that ok?
Honestly, I don't consider it slavery, but if you give them rights and responsibilities within the law, it would be. Either they're forced to stay where we put them, or they become responsible for crimes that they don't even know they're comitting, like trespass and vandalism. We can't make them pay for plants they destroy, we can't confine them without their permission, what do we do? Incarcerate them for breaking the law? At tremendous expense and zero gain?
They can't be legal entities in a sane society, so they NEED to be property. And being property suggests strongly that we have the right to use them to our gain.
Of course I can't prove it for every pet, but my own dog walks outside all day and has never even left the yard during her 8 years(I live on a farm). And she eats everything she can find when we go for a walk so I'm sure she knows there's plenty of food around. And if I go anywhere she will follow without me saying anything.
But scientifically I can of course not prove anything.
Like I said, I do NOT have an ethical issue with keeping pets. I have an intellectual issue with the argument that animals are ethically equivalent to humans when they can't be (rationally) given societal responsibility to match the rights people claim they should have.
It's in response to emerging biotech-animal concerns, but it outlines a moral premise for judging animals. In this discussion it's not too useful since eating animals isn't likely considered to be a violation of animal integrity, but I figured you might want to read about animal ethics from a non-so-nonsensical perspective. Sometimes when people talk about animal morals stemming from animal rights, it does seem a little absurd, but I think animal morality in the context of animal integrity can be used in a number of useful ways
I'm working on it, but so far it seems to be a lot of waffle dedicated to the same arguments that people have been making already. Just because it's formatted well and uses impressive sounding language doesn't change the fact that it still boils down to "there's something ethically wrong with using other life for our own gains, but this time it sounds scientific!"
Lol, this is a respected and peer-reviewed piece assembled by a research team. You didn't actually read it. The "fluff" to which you refer is the background: it sets the stage for what is at stake. Nevermind if your mind is already set and you hold what you think to be the most informed view
I already said I haven't finished it, I wasn't aware this was just the background that I'm suffering through. I would have thought the "I'm working on it" statement implied a lack of finishing it so far, and a hope to do so.
Also, plenty of peer reviewed pieces assembled by research teams are a lot of waffle, and have plenty of equally peer reviewed dissent.
On April 16 2012 01:27 StickyFlower wrote: A dog has personality. A cow lack it.
Hence I have no problem eating a cow but would never eat a dog. (Never say never but I would prefer not to.) Humans have domesticided some animals for their talants as living beings, and some for their talants of providing food.
By simplifying it and say "It is either okay to eat animals--dogs included. Or it's not okay to eat animals." Is an error for me, because Humans are animals too. So what you are then saying is "We cant eat meat because we are made of meat ourselves and what would stop us from feasting on eachother?!?!?"
You might call me a racist for favouring some animals to live a long and prosperous life while others are made to make sure the favoured animals will live their long and prosperous life.
You don't eat humans for survival reasons.
A society that eats its own survives less than a society that doesn't. So we have evolved to be non-cannibalistic creatures because it improves our survival.
Favoritism amongst animals is a purely biased mindset and isn't something that is philosophically or morally sound.
Sure you do, there are many examples of this. One of the most famous ones were a plane crash in south america (I think, not 100 % sure) where they fed on the passengers who had died to survive. There's been movies and books about it, but it's not a unique event.
I assume he was talking on a macro scale and not just isolated events? A society in which cannibalism is accepted would potentially be worse off than the opposite.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
Serious question: have you ever lived with an animal (dog/cat/etc.)? If so, I think you would notice that each animal has its own personality. A personality based on nature and nurture, just like humans!
I have seen my dogs do crazy smart things. They have figured out, WITHOUT training, how to open doors, steal food, and even try to disguise their stealing of food! Animals absolutely have conscious thought!
My mother kept a lot of cats, dogs and chickens, though I wasn't particularly attached to them. My view of this subject is mostly based on neurobiology rather than my interpretations of what my mum's menagerie were doing.
Thing is, there's a separation between "consciousness" and "problem solving ability", and one does not necessarily imply the other. You could write a computer program that could solve incredibly complex problems, even in ways that seem innovative to an observer who is unaware of how it works, but a computer program doesn't have "consciousness".
Here's the thing - what you really want to do, is to be able to ask your dog "are you conscious of self?" "do you feel pain?" "do you love your owner?" etc. The problem is, we are not able to teach dogs concepts at this level - we're only really able to train them that if they receive X stimulus, and perform Y action, they are rewarded.
So we're not able to communicate with animals on a (scientifically) meaningful level, and instead we're forced to interpret their responses through our own expectations of what those responses mean. This is a pretty reasonable thing to do for humans communicating with humans, since you can put yourself in the other person's shoes and think "if I did that, it would mean ...", and reasonably expect it to be true since our brains are sufficiently similar.
The problem is when we're forced to do that with animals. Then we're forcing human thinking onto an animal's actions - "if I were my dog doing X, that means I'd be thinking Y". It's not necessarily a valid step to take.
Animal nervous systems are wired up rather differently to ours, with proportionally much more of their actions dependent on simple reflexes compared to humans whose brains can directly control limb actions. You've probably heard about the chicken that had its head and most of its brain cut off and survived for 9 months, able to carry out most activities of living such as walking, running, digestion, pooing, etc. Experiments on decerebrate cats shows that cats are also able to walk and adjust their speed without the part of the brain thought to be important for conscious thought.
In essence, don't underestimate just how much is possible without conscious thought - even complex, coordinated movements in response to a changing stimulus are possible. Now that's not evidence that animals lack consciousness. It's just a caution against what evidence there is to suggest they do have consciousness.
I find there to be 0 reason to assume that birds, or especially mammals would not have a clear consciousnesses, with all the emotions including pain and suffering, when the closest thing to those that we can ask this from human, does have those.
The chicken this also proves nothing. The headless chicken survived out of luck, as after that thing happened, it has been tried to replicate countless times, but it has always failed. There are multiple humans who can live 95% normal life even thou they lost a major part of the brain. Example: + Show Spoiler [Ahad Israfil] +
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.
On April 15 2012 15:04 Abort Retry Fail wrote: If you're ok with eating beef or pork or chicken, I see no reasong why dogs are much different
Because most people don't consider cows, pigs, or chickens as pets.
So.. since YOU consider only dogs from that list as pets means that an entire culture of people should conform to your standards and see it that eating dogs is wrong?
My point wasn't to the ethics of eating dog, but rather the argument he posed which is that basically since dogs are animals too, why are they any different from cows or pigs? In western culture (anywhere outside of eastern Asia really), people consider dogs as higher life forms than pigs or cows. For example, in the US, pets are so close to being considered as "human", that there are people who argue that they deserve the same rights as we do.
And just to answer your question, yes, I think entire cultures should conform to my standards. Maybe not about eating dog, but how the animals are treated when they're going to be used for meat. Things such as living conditions, nutritional needs, health, and how they are killed.
As a meat eater, I can't necessarily object to the idea of killing dogs for meat, but when you torture and hurt these animals, I will oppose to it. I do also recognize that this isn't a special case with dogs, as cows, pigs, and chickens are treated similarly, but they seem to get more attention because of our culture and they're usually in worse conditions then what we subject our meat providers to.
Probably chinese and korean people kill and eat dogs because of a misunderstanding, just as japanese people eat dolphin and whale instead of chicken and cow like us normal people!
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
Society has always cared about how animals are treated. It's just that most people are ignorant to the world around them, so they don't realize that these animals we eat are killed and treated the way they are.
On April 16 2012 02:59 JeffS wrote: Because dogs are pets.
You can say that dogs are pets, but you can also say that pigs, cows and even fish are also pets. There isn't a difference between a dog and a cow when you look at it from a starving carnivore's point of view.
On April 15 2012 15:04 Abort Retry Fail wrote: If you're ok with eating beef or pork or chicken, I see no reasong why dogs are much different
Because most people don't consider cows, pigs, or chickens as pets.
So.. since YOU consider only dogs from that list as pets means that an entire culture of people should conform to your standards and see it that eating dogs is wrong?
My point wasn't to the ethics of eating dog, but rather the argument he posed which is that basically since dogs are animals too, why are they any different from cows or pigs? In western culture (anywhere outside of eastern Asia really), people consider dogs as higher life forms than pigs or cows. For example, in the US, pets are so close to being considered as "human", that their are people who argue that they deserve the same rights as we do.
And just to answer your question, yes, I think entire cultures should conform to my standards. Maybe not about eating dog, but how the animals are treated when they're going to be used for meat. Things such as living conditions, nutritional needs, health, and how they are killed.
As a meat eater, I can't necessarily object to the idea of killing dogs for meat, but when you torture and hurt these animals, I will oppose to it. I do also recognize that this isn't a special case with dogs, as cows, pigs, and chickens are treated similarly, but they seem to get more attention because of our culture and they're usually in worse conditions then what we subject our meat providers to.
Sure. I think most people here can agree upon that whatever animal is being consumed should not be subjected to a tortured, brutal death after living in horrendous conditions.
What irks me is people who say altogether eating dogs is wrong because they are cute, furry, creatures with loyal personality & cuteness than that of a pig or cow.
This thread seems to be a based off of the ethics of eating DOG and not how consumed animals are being treated in the industrialized setting.
On April 15 2012 08:52 Redox wrote: Dogs are highly social animals. They have not been bred to live under the conditions of mass livestock farming. They just go mad if kept under certain conditions, it is animal cruelty. One just has to look up certain videos from China to know what is the problem with farming dogs.
Really, now society cares about the feelings of the animals we eat?, it's total nonsense you either care about ALL of them or none of them and since nobody really cares about chicken's or pig's feelings, then why would dogs be any different? Chickens are social animals too man but at the end of the day it's just meat, period. Dogs don't care about the feelings of the animals they eat, why would we care for their feelings?
I agree, and argue the we SHOULD care about the feeling of all animals and thus NOT EAT ANY ANIMALS!!!!
Furthermore, if you really care about animals, then don't eat eggs or dairy! These industries keep animals alive and torture them to feed humans!
There's no good reason to believe that animals of any kind "feel" anything, including pain.
They are capable of sensing and producing stereotyped responses to damaging stimuli, but so are insects and I don't know of anyone who argues that insects should enjoy the same level of protection as other animals.
They are capable of being trained to produce certain (potentially complex) responses to certain types of stimuli (such as dogs wagging their tails in response to recognising a certain person such their owner), but there is no evidence that there is consciousness involved, rather than a simply re-wiring of their brains in response to Pavlovian conditioning (on a similar level to a simple reflex)
The only species we have reason to believe is capable of "conscious" thought, and hence feeling, is humans. And even then it's only because each individual person believes they are conscious, and is capable of directly and unambigiously communicating this fact to other humans.
This post is pretty crazy. Are you arguing that no animals can have feelings ? You do realize that we humans are animals as well correct ? Socially dogs are more intelligent than chimpanzees and other animals have empathy as well. I'm guessing a lot of people here either think only in terms of brutal efficiency or have never been around animals.
I'm not arguing that "no animals can have feelings". I'm arguing that there is no scientific evidence that they do have feelings.
Social intelligence is not the same thing as feelings. Dogs are certainly capable of exhibiting behaviour that, if seen in humans, would be interpreted as love. But we cannot know whether this behaviour is because - their brains connections changed so that absence of the other organism results in release of chemicals associated with a negative outcome, or - they actually feel love for the other organism
I guess you can believe whichever you want and noone can really call you out on it. Personally I believe the evidence favours the first explanation.
Define the "actual" love. Is it based on no mechanical substance and there are no hormones to play a significant role in it? What century are we living in again?
The difference between a dog and an insect is that the if the insect is hurt, the receptors are directly connected to its muscles to cause a reaction, whereas in a dog (and in us), the link isn't direct and causes us to feel pain first and then react. Whether the dog experiences the pain in the same way we do is always up for debate since the dog won't tell us. But there's little to no reason to believe it's different, since the same mechanisms, same hormones are involved as in us.
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 something tells me you just aren't reading my posts very carefully after the first one to you :/
Don't you at least realize I stressed multiple times that it's not directly useful in this discussion? Suggesting you read that piece was merely 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. Look closely at my other posts and you'll see that I employ "animal integrity" to say, if anything, that there is no difference between eating a cow vs. eating a pig.
On April 16 2012 02:55 evilm0nkey wrote: Probably chinese and korean people kill and eat dogs because of a misunderstanding, just as japanese people eat dolphin and whale instead of chicken and cow like us normal people!
Wow. "Us normal people" Sorry but I don't want to be categorized as normal with someone of your mentality. There is no misunderstanding, your culture and people are not superior to another because of their food. The world does not revolve around you or the western world so screw off with your stupid statement.
Cows, chickens etc just spend their days wandering around grazing/scratching for food, which they basically do whether they are captive or wild. Dogs, on the other hand, are social animals that need to be part of a family group, and raising them and other carnivores in cages or even enclosures where they are just thown food until they are slaughtered is vile animal abuse. Eating dog meat (or fois gras, using anything with bear bile etc) is just evil, no other word for it. Unless you're some starving peasant killing stray dogs to stay alive (which is probably where the practise began), choose to eat animals that don't have to suffer their whole short lives for 'tradition' or a tourist's curiosity.
Imagine all the dogs you know, how much they need companionship, exercise, games or jobs - how the hell can someone claim that sticking them in a cage or whatever they do isn't animal torture? I highly doubt they're raised in a secure pack with adequate exercise and attention if they're just going to be slaughtered. People who torture animals are right down there with child molesters imo.
Fine, eating dogs is a cultural thing. But the whole "let's skin them alive and beat them before we kill them" is wrong. But cruelty to animals runs rampant in Asia.
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.
On April 16 2012 03:09 Feridan wrote: Cows, chickens etc just spend their days wandering around grazing/scratching for food, which they basically do whether they are captive or wild. Dogs, on the other hand, are social animals that need to be part of a family group, and raising them and other carnivores in cages or even enclosures where they are just thown food until they are slaughtered is vile animal abuse. Eating dog meat (or fois gras, using anything with bear bile etc) is just evil, no other word for it. Unless you're some starving peasant killing stray dogs to stay alive (which is probably where the practise began), choose to eat animals that don't have to suffer their whole short lives for 'tradition' or a tourist's curiosity.
Imagine all the dogs you know, how much they need companionship, exercise, games or jobs - how the hell can someone claim that sticking them in a cage or whatever they do isn't animal torture? I highly doubt they're raised in a secure pack with adequate exercise and attention if they're just going to be slaughtered. People who torture animals are right down there with child molesters imo.
Well that's a fun "Would you rather".
Would you rather torture, kill, and eat a dog or rape a 5 year old child?
People with opinions like yours are what make the ASPCA more profitable than the SACS foundation...
On April 16 2012 03:09 Feridan wrote: Cows, chickens etc just spend their days wandering around grazing/scratching for food, which they basically do whether they are captive or wild. Dogs, on the other hand, are social animals that need to be part of a family group, and raising them and other carnivores in cages or even enclosures where they are just thown food until they are slaughtered is vile animal abuse. Eating dog meat (or fois gras, using anything with bear bile etc) is just evil, no other word for it. Unless you're some starving peasant killing stray dogs to stay alive (which is probably where the practise began), choose to eat animals that don't have to suffer their whole short lives for 'tradition' or a tourist's curiosity.
Imagine all the dogs you know, how much they need companionship, exercise, games or jobs - how the hell can someone claim that sticking them in a cage or whatever they do isn't animal torture? I highly doubt they're raised in a secure pack with adequate exercise and attention if they're just going to be slaughtered. People who torture animals are right down there with child molesters imo.
What about wild dogs/wolves? All they do is wander around in packs looking for food. I'm sure they would eat you up as well? There is no moral high ground when it comes to dogs vs. cow or chicken. Do people in India say hey you shouldn't eat cow and call you evil because we revere them and treat them like royalty here? Its all about perspective and if your gonna hold your beliefs to be higher than someone elses and call them evil because of it, than your in the absolute wrong.
Another thing is no don't imagine all the dogs you know because there is a specific breed of consumed dog and its not your typical german shepard, golden retriever, or poodle thats being consumed.
On April 16 2012 02:55 evilm0nkey wrote: Probably chinese and korean people kill and eat dogs because of a misunderstanding, just as japanese people eat dolphin and whale instead of chicken and cow like us normal people!
Wow. "Us normal people" Sorry but I don't want to be categorized as normal with someone of your mentality. There is no misunderstanding, your culture and people are not superior to another because of their food. The world does not revolve around you or the western world so screw off with your stupid statement.
On April 16 2012 02:55 evilm0nkey wrote: Probably chinese and korean people kill and eat dogs because of a misunderstanding, just as japanese people eat dolphin and whale instead of chicken and cow like us normal people!
Wow. "Us normal people" Sorry but I don't want to be categorized as normal with someone of your mentality. There is no misunderstanding, your culture and people are not superior to another because of their food. The world does not revolve around you or the western world so screw off with your stupid statement.
It's a joke. Watch South Park.
Yeah with the amount of sheer ignorance that goes around, wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a joke. Also no thank you.
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.
I hate anyone who eats pig/cow/horse meat, they are our best friends.
Its fine to eat dog meat. They are no different from other animals when it comes to the food chain.
You're only thinking of the killing and eating, not the life they lead prior to slaughter. You're basically saying 'we allow goldfish to live in small enclosures their whole lives, therefore it must be fine for any living being to be happy living their lives in small enclosures'. Obviously, there is a massive difference between dogs and cows.
I actually had dog meat twice. It's nothing special but i don't understand how people can sentence others for eating animal meat of any kind. In asia dogs have a different significance for society. As there a less pet dogs people dont develop that intimate relationship with dogs.
Anyways if you have the chance to eat dog meat dont do it because it tastes kinda bad.
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.
I hate anyone who eats pig/cow/horse meat, they are our best friends.
Its fine to eat dog meat. They are no different from other animals when it comes to the food chain.
You're only thinking of the killing and eating, not the life they lead prior to slaughter. You're basically saying 'we allow goldfish to live in small enclosures their whole lives, therefore it must be fine for any living being to be happy living their lives in small enclosures'. Obviously, there is a massive difference between dogs and cows.
What? This thread is about the notion and ethics of EATING DOG, not the living conditions and slaughter methods of livestock because that deserves its own thread. Also whats different between a crammed up slaughtered dog and a crammed up slaughtered cow? Nothing, they're both being subjected to crappy environment. Just because one is perceived as a "cute, furry pet" doesn't mean its even more cruel to the dog.
i don't like it but i'm just biased because i love dogs. not that i don't love cows, it's just different. i love my grandmother but i would never make out with her. that kind of thing.
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)
Somewhere in India there is a message board with the question "Ethics of cow meat".
Dog meat is a culture thing. If you can be objective, how is it any morally worse than eating another animal that is commonly used as meat in the western world. Hell, pigs can be pets and we eat those!
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.
Meh, logically there's nothing wrong with it. But ethics and logic are nowhere near the same thing. It's perfectly possible and reasonable to draw the conclusion that if eating cow is acceptabel then so is eating dog. But that's not really relevant, in case you didn't know ethics isn't a "science" it's philosophy on some level and it's not really something you can be wrong or right about. You can merely have an opionion on it. I personally have no problem with eating dog. Hell when i was a kid we used to have a rabbit, one day my dad decided non of us really cared enough for it, so we got it butchered and ate it. Delicious.
Pigs are more intelligent and have more "sentience" than dogs, but that doesn't stop them from being delicious! I don't consider the consumption of dogs any worse than what our consumption of "normal" livestock.
Granted, I think we in the developed world should probably cut back a bit on the meat consumption, both for health and environmental reasons. We eat far more meat as a proportion of our diet than we probably should.
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.
I hate anyone who eats pig/cow/horse meat, they are our best friends.
Its fine to eat dog meat. They are no different from other animals when it comes to the food chain.
You're only thinking of the killing and eating, not the life they lead prior to slaughter. You're basically saying 'we allow goldfish to live in small enclosures their whole lives, therefore it must be fine for any living being to be happy living their lives in small enclosures'. Obviously, there is a massive difference between dogs and cows.
There is obviously not that big of a difference for some people. Some cultures doesn't east pigs, some doesn't east cow. Some do eat dog. Ethic isn't universal.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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)
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
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?
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
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.
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
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.
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
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?).
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
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.
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
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..
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Pigs have very strong personalities and if we are brining that into the equation then I would not eat pigs or dogs.
I personally think the eating of meat is relatively insignifigant morally speaking compared to the conditions in which the animal is raised and slaughtered. These days the conditions in which animals are raised and slaughtered make it hard to justify eating meat at all in my eyes and on the flip side killing and eating an animal that has grown to maturity and lead its life in a natural course is something that has happened since there were predators so denying it would flip the natural world upside down and make sinners of lions and wolves.
On April 16 2012 05:58 Telcontar wrote: 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.
Meat dogs are different than pet dogs, but these differences hardly change the moral status of the animal. A fellow vet med student of mine has a dog she bought from a meat vendor in south korea. The breed wasn't directly domesticated like most common dog breeds. They are more related to Dingos. But they still can function as pets, get along with people and cats and other dogs, and arguably have just as much "personality" as a selectively domesticated dog. Sure they may be a little more skittish and less obedient. But many dog breeds are less obedient than others. So where did you come up with the conclusion that the differences between these Dingo-related dogs and common domesticated dogs make it okay to kill them for meat whereas it wouldn't be okay with other dogs?
All you're left with is an appeal to emotion and a cultural taboo... That is no basis for ethical argument sir.
The i guess is that while the dog are close to each other genetically the emotional bond is not there as dogs are individuals . Think about the difference between your GF/BF and a random person. In fact it would be preferable if everybody ate their dogs after they died, its a huge waste to not eat it.
On April 16 2012 06:04 PaqMan wrote: 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.
Pigs are very intelligent probably more so than dogs.
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia made an episode about cannibalism and they were deciding whether to eat a black guy or white guy.
They were like.. is it racist if I don't feel like eating the black guy? Because in general, I prefer white meat over dark meat. Something like that.. hahahaha..
But yea.. back to the original post; I have no problem with other people eating dog meat. However, I don't think it's something I'd be comfortable around me. I know that sounds contradictory but I just can't explain.
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.
On April 15 2012 13:46 wattabeast wrote: I personally strongly disagree with it as my 2 dogs are the only things keeping me going at times in tough times at home; I dont know how i could consider them not as a part of the family; to me they are humans who just can't speak.
what if for someone goat or cow is a part of family and people killing them for food
In response to the pet thing; ofc one wouldn't go ahead and eat a pet. However, eating something like a stray is different than one that one has been emotionally attached to.
On April 16 2012 06:14 Eppa! wrote: The i guess is that while the dog are close to each other genetically the emotional bond is not there as dogs are individuals . Think about the difference between your GF/BF and a random person. In fact it would be preferable if everybody ate their dogs after they died, its a huge waste to not eat it.
On April 16 2012 06:04 PaqMan wrote: 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.
Pigs are very intelligent probably more so than dogs.
A huge waste would be to shoot it into space after you owned it. I hope you realize that there actually is a circle to life.
( Humans rot, feed maggots, fertilize ground for plant life so on so on )
Personally I think people are pretty disconnected from animals and the pain they go through to end up on our plates. I eat meat but I want to make sure the animal lived a good life before it died, and died humanely.
I wonder how many modern people would actually become vegans if they had to raise the animals and slaughter themselves.
On April 16 2012 06:47 absalom86 wrote: Personally I think people are pretty disconnected from animals and the pain they go through to end up on our plates. I eat meat but I want to make sure the animal lived a good life before it died, and died humanely.
I wonder how many modern people would actually become vegans if they had to raise the animals and slaughter themselves.
I'd also drink less water if I had to continually walk to a stream to fetch a pale. Rest assured, meat would still be eaten. Pretty much every culture in the world has some type of party or get together that revolves around killing, then butchering, and eating the animal. Maybe some people are disgusted by it, but if anything, it makes you apppreciate the food more... as opposed to stopping me from eating it.
different cultures eat different things. if that's what you grew up doing i don't have a problem with it but i would never eat it... i would also kill you if you tried to eat my dog.
honestly its fine if its not someone else's pet you are eating.. then its wrong imo, really its the same way as if someone owned a farm animal and someone else took it and ate it without their permission (say someone who just has a cow for milk) same thing essentially.
personally i don't know if i would ever do it but really its fine in the cultural context its just another meat.
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.
I don't have anything against eating dogs; however, I would not eat one myself. Although there is a difference between pet dogs and...other dogs lol. I probably wouldn't suggest eating pet dogs, especially if it's not yours
On April 16 2012 04:38 Aelip wrote: Meh, logically there's nothing wrong with it. But ethics and logic are nowhere near the same thing. It's perfectly possible and reasonable to draw the conclusion that if eating cow is acceptabel then so is eating dog. But that's not really relevant, in case you didn't know ethics isn't a "science" it's philosophy on some level and it's not really something you can be wrong or right about. You can merely have an opionion on it. I personally have no problem with eating dog. Hell when i was a kid we used to have a rabbit, one day my dad decided non of us really cared enough for it, so we got it butchered and ate it. Delicious.
I personally think that morality is entirely objective and based on logic and reason. Esentially, any act that causes unnecessary harm to an innocent, sentient being is immoral. Just because one 'doesn't really care enough' for an animal doesn't mean that butchering it is ok from an ethical standpoint. The simple fact that the animal has a decent life and a brain capable of producing complex emotions should be enough justification to not prematurely end its life.
So to answer the OP's question, I think that killing dogs for consumption is just as ethical (or unethical) as doing so for any other animal. The fact that they are cute and loyal, or that a particular society has viewed it as ok, seems to me to be irrelevant. The only time when the morality of dog eating should be put aside is when one's survival is in jeopardy.
Of course, these are just my thoughts on the matter, and I do not expect anyone else to share the same viewpoint.
I personally went vegan at the beginning of the year when I realized I couldn't come up with an ethical argument to justify my meat-eating (to clarify - it is not the consumption of meat I have a problem with, but the killing of innocent animals).
On April 16 2012 02:55 evilm0nkey wrote: Probably chinese and korean people kill and eat dogs because of a misunderstanding, just as japanese people eat dolphin and whale instead of chicken and cow like us normal people!
Wow. "Us normal people" Sorry but I don't want to be categorized as normal with someone of your mentality. There is no misunderstanding, your culture and people are not superior to another because of their food. The world does not revolve around you or the western world so screw off with your stupid statement.
It's a joke. Watch South Park.
Yeah with the amount of sheer ignorance that goes around, wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a joke. Also no thank you.
That south park episode (Whale Whores S13E11) satirizes the western intolerance to foreign culture's eating behaviour. I guess you would actually enjoy it! And I agree with your reaction to my post as you didnt know the joke
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.
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?
So this is where Dorthy left you? But what would Tinman do without his strawman?
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.
Cows have bigger brains than dogs (mass wise)
Pigs are smarter than dogs (intellect)
by your logic--cows and pigs should be saved and the US should eat dogs en mass.
Humans are not even a carnivorous species in the first place. Yet we still kill animals for convenience, pleasure, and because of habit. Dogs are not fundamentally different from any other animal on earth. What defines the "human level" exactly? Our capacity of rational thought? Because a lot of shit we do cannot find any justification ethically but powerful lobbyists make it so that is simply overlooked.
On April 16 2012 10:43 BentoBox wrote: Humans are not even a carnivorous species in the first place. Yet we still kill animals for convenience, pleasure, and because of habit. Dogs are not fundamentally different from any other animal on earth. What defines the "human level" exactly? Our capacity of rational thought? Because a lot of shit we do cannot find any justification ethically but powerful lobbyists make it so that is simply overlooked.
If we're going to get into the realm of lobbyists, politics, and the American Zeitgeist. Then eating dog is wrong because we arbitrarily say so. For no other reason than our sheer force of will and our willingness our beliefs are superior to the beliefs of others.
But seriously though--dogs are animals. We eat them or don't eat them because they're edible.
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.
KJSharp was talking about banning the consumption of dogs/horses/cats.
DystopiaX argued that it is wrong to do that, because there are people who feel differently to KJSharp.
I simply presented the reason why that is a useless point to make. KJSharp was presenting the case for banning consumption of those animals. If enough people in the country agree with him, then I'm sorry people who don't agree, it will be made law. Right now (in England) it's not illegal to eat dog or cat although we do have animal cruelty laws at least, we don't go for this completely bullshit 'treat anything that's not human however you want to no matter how cruelly':
But meh, to be honest I know a lot of people look down on those who eat dogs and disapprove of the Chinese/ Koreans who do it. Also, the French aren't highly regarded for their penchant for animal cruelty and chowing down on horses.
On April 16 2012 10:38 lorkac wrote: So this is where Dorthy left you? But what would Tinman do without his strawman?
Hint: next time you try a really bad putdown, check for spelling...
On April 16 2012 10:43 BentoBox wrote: Humans are not even a carnivorous species in the first place. Yet we still kill animals for convenience, pleasure, and because of habit. Dogs are not fundamentally different from any other animal on earth. What defines the "human level" exactly? Our capacity of rational thought? Because a lot of shit we do cannot find any justification ethically but powerful lobbyists make it so that is simply overlooked.
If we're going to get into the realm of lobbyists, politics, and the American Zeitgeist. Then eating dog is wrong because we arbitrarily say so. For no other reason than our sheer force of will and our willingness our beliefs are superior to the beliefs of others.
But seriously though--dogs are animals. We eat them or don't eat them because they're edible.
Would I be arrested in america if I took dogs from an animal shelter, euthanized them and ate them? Eating dog is only "wrong" because of the affection we have for them. Nothing else.
I'd eat people too--but that's homicide and is unacceptable in society outside of extreme circumstances. As a society, we protect each other and support each other (that's the reason we formed a society to begin with). Because of this, we have certain rules like "don't kill each other" which, luckily enough, includes don't eat each other. We also have other rules such as no more slavery or no more ownership of other human beings. This is also to protect us from losing our freedoms, to protect us from losing our autonomy. This means we can't simply claim dead bodies randomly as they fall in order to eat them. There is a specific sequence of rights and red tape that need to be waded through with the ownership of the body going from family to state to science etc....
Because of this, as a society, we have a lot of rules that prevent the support of cannibalism.
Eating people in and of itself isn't wrong--but it's wrong in the sense that it does not support a system that would protect and nurture humanity as a whole.
If, for example, dogs and pigs switched places and people had bacon for pets and lassie for dinner--the US wouldn't be any different than it is now. Saying dogs are special is irrelevant to the way things work.
If, hypothetically, you lived in a society where it was okay to cannibalize each other--it would only work in a society that supported the cannibalization of either the dead or the enemy. Because social systems cannot be supportive of practices which encourages the murder of fellow members of said society--otherwise the social group crumbles. Cannibalistic animals are solitary by nature for a reason.
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.
KJSharp was talking about banning the consumption of dogs/horses/cats.
DystopiaX argued that it is wrong to do that, because there are people who feel differently to KJSharp.
I simply presented the reason why that is a useless point to make. KJSharp was presenting the case for banning consumption of those animals. If enough people in the country agree with him, then I'm sorry people who don't agree, it will be made law. Right now it's not illegal to eat dog or cat although we do have animal cruelty laws at least, we don't go for this completely bullshit 'treat anything that's not human however you want to no matter how cruelly':
On April 16 2012 10:38 lorkac wrote: So this is where Dorthy left you? But what would Tinman do without his strawman?
Hint: next time you try a really bad putdown, check for spelling...
In that case you would be correct as Society sets the moral standards for the people, while the mass sets the moral standards for society, so yes in the rare case where the mass and thus society deem it's acceptable to rape underage minors, it would be socially acceptable because of the mass do not deem it morally incorrect. After all even though Society have laws, aren't the laws made by other humans too?
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.
KJSharp was talking about banning the consumption of dogs/horses/cats.
DystopiaX argued that it is wrong to do that, because there are people who feel differently to KJSharp.
I simply presented the reason why that is a useless point to make. KJSharp was presenting the case for banning consumption of those animals. If enough people in the country agree with him, then I'm sorry people who don't agree, it will be made law. Right now (in England) it's not illegal to eat dog or cat although we do have animal cruelty laws at least, we don't go for this completely bullshit 'treat anything that's not human however you want to no matter how cruelly':
But meh, to be honest I know a lot of people look down on those who eat dogs and disapprove of the Chinese/ Koreans who do it. Also, the French aren't highly regarded for their penchant for animal cruelty and chowing down on horses.
On April 16 2012 10:38 lorkac wrote: So this is where Dorthy left you? But what would Tinman do without his strawman?
Hint: next time you try a really bad putdown, check for spelling...
So you don't disagree that you're simply attempting to deflect your weak argument with irrelevant out of topic examples? Cool. I guess you've lost the argument then?
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.
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.
I think we are a little off track right now most people seems to want to disapprove the people that won't eat dogs but why do we give a shit about that?
The topic is ethics of dog meat which, Should the Eating of dogs be allowed, Should people have a choice in having dog stew or beef stew for dinner.
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.
KJSharp was talking about banning the consumption of dogs/horses/cats.
DystopiaX argued that it is wrong to do that, because there are people who feel differently to KJSharp.
I simply presented the reason why that is a useless point to make. KJSharp was presenting the case for banning consumption of those animals. If enough people in the country agree with him, then I'm sorry people who don't agree, it will be made law. Right now (in England) it's not illegal to eat dog or cat although we do have animal cruelty laws at least, we don't go for this completely bullshit 'treat anything that's not human however you want to no matter how cruelly':
But meh, to be honest I know a lot of people look down on those who eat dogs and disapprove of the Chinese/ Koreans who do it. Also, the French aren't highly regarded for their penchant for animal cruelty and chowing down on horses.
On April 16 2012 10:38 lorkac wrote: So this is where Dorthy left you? But what would Tinman do without his strawman?
Hint: next time you try a really bad putdown, check for spelling...
So you don't disagree that you're simply attempting to deflect your weak argument with irrelevant out of topic examples? Cool. I guess you've lost the argument then?
Um, I wasn't actually discussing anything with you, I have no idea what you are talking about. I was just correcting the guy's reply to KJSharp. I am fully convinced that eating dogs should be banned, it's a simple emotional decision that they are too good to us, they have too many ongoing uses, they have been extremely useful and instrumental in our ascension as a species. You can't really argue with my simple emotional response. I'm not convinced there are any other arguments against the eating of dogs. If you aren't swayed by the argument, then so be it, you clearly have a different set of priorities to me. What matters is how many people will agree with you and will agree with me. I think you have the advantage in terms of making eating dogs illegal...congratulations are in order. I don't think this topic is particularly deep, we aren't dealing with a complex socio-economic issue.
PS I only responded to your post because of your bad putdown.
On April 16 2012 11:06 Blasterion wrote: I think we are a little off track right now most people seems to want to disapprove the people that won't eat dogs but why do we give a shit about that?
The topic is ethics of dog meat which, Should the Eating of dogs be allowed, Should people have a choice in having dog stew or beef stew for dinner.
I'm very much down for the main topic.
Dogs are edible animals that people have eaten and still eat today. Whole countries are doing it--and even countries who are not doing institutionally have most likely eaten (as a society over time) their share of dog (I'm looking at you Ozzarks!)
Being that is the case, it's not only perfectly okay and normal to eat dog both historically, culturally and scientifically--but the people who pretend that eating dog is any different than eating any other animal is actually contradicting human history, science, and culture.
ie--it's weird if you don't think eating dog is okay.
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.
KJSharp was talking about banning the consumption of dogs/horses/cats.
DystopiaX argued that it is wrong to do that, because there are people who feel differently to KJSharp.
I simply presented the reason why that is a useless point to make. KJSharp was presenting the case for banning consumption of those animals. If enough people in the country agree with him, then I'm sorry people who don't agree, it will be made law. Right now (in England) it's not illegal to eat dog or cat although we do have animal cruelty laws at least, we don't go for this completely bullshit 'treat anything that's not human however you want to no matter how cruelly':
But meh, to be honest I know a lot of people look down on those who eat dogs and disapprove of the Chinese/ Koreans who do it. Also, the French aren't highly regarded for their penchant for animal cruelty and chowing down on horses.
On April 16 2012 10:38 lorkac wrote: So this is where Dorthy left you? But what would Tinman do without his strawman?
Hint: next time you try a really bad putdown, check for spelling...
So you don't disagree that you're simply attempting to deflect your weak argument with irrelevant out of topic examples? Cool. I guess you've lost the argument then?
Um, I wasn't actually discussing anything with you, I have no idea what you are talking about. I was just correcting the guy's reply to KJSharp. I am fully convinced that eating dogs should be banned, it's a simple emotional decision that they are too good to us, they have too many ongoing uses, they have been extremely useful and instrumental in our ascension as a species. You can't really argue with my simple emotional response. I'm not convinced there are any other arguments against the eating of dogs. If you aren't swayed by the argument, then so be it, you clearly have a different set of priorities to me. What matters is how many people will agree with you and will agree with me. I think you have the advantage in terms of making eating dogs illegal...congratulations are in order. I don't think this topic is particularly deep, we aren't dealing with a complex socio-economic issue.
Your counterarguement to the discussion of dog meat is that anyone who is okay with eating dogs is okay with sex offenders molesting children. That is proof that you have already lost the conversation and probably have a long time ago. Not against me--because I don't really care what you think--but against whoever it is you're arguing against.
You not wanting to eat dog does not mean no one should eat dog. Why? Because that same argument can be made the other way. Korea eats dogs--why shouldn't you? See how silly it is to use feelings as an argumentative case?
Your father enjoys having sex with your mother--everyone should enjoy having sex with your mother?
The logic is silly and leads nowhere. Being that that is the case--you're left with no choice than to suggest that people who eat dogs are also supportive of child sex offenders. Why? Because you have no argumentative case outside of you saying so. It's a dictatorial attack on people who are honestly trying to communicate with you.
As for your attempt to move this to a populist decision ie "What matters is how many people will agree with you and will agree with me" then you're clearly already accepting that it is irrational and pointless that you don't like eating dogs. And yet, instead of simply being honest with yourself that you're in the wrong, you're hoping that if you simply have enough people who support you, each of them absent of any argument just like yourself, that maybe you'll be able to just pretend that your belief system, which you admit is logically wrong and unsound, will hopefully be accepted as correct despite all evidence to the contrary?
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.
KJSharp was talking about banning the consumption of dogs/horses/cats.
DystopiaX argued that it is wrong to do that, because there are people who feel differently to KJSharp.
I simply presented the reason why that is a useless point to make. KJSharp was presenting the case for banning consumption of those animals. If enough people in the country agree with him, then I'm sorry people who don't agree, it will be made law. Right now (in England) it's not illegal to eat dog or cat although we do have animal cruelty laws at least, we don't go for this completely bullshit 'treat anything that's not human however you want to no matter how cruelly':
But meh, to be honest I know a lot of people look down on those who eat dogs and disapprove of the Chinese/ Koreans who do it. Also, the French aren't highly regarded for their penchant for animal cruelty and chowing down on horses.
On April 16 2012 10:38 lorkac wrote: So this is where Dorthy left you? But what would Tinman do without his strawman?
Hint: next time you try a really bad putdown, check for spelling...
So you don't disagree that you're simply attempting to deflect your weak argument with irrelevant out of topic examples? Cool. I guess you've lost the argument then?
Um, I wasn't actually discussing anything with you, I have no idea what you are talking about. I was just correcting the guy's reply to KJSharp. I am fully convinced that eating dogs should be banned, it's a simple emotional decision that they are too good to us, they have too many ongoing uses, they have been extremely useful and instrumental in our ascension as a species. You can't really argue with my simple emotional response. I'm not convinced there are any other arguments against the eating of dogs. If you aren't swayed by the argument, then so be it, you clearly have a different set of priorities to me. What matters is how many people will agree with you and will agree with me. I think you have the advantage in terms of making eating dogs illegal...congratulations are in order. I don't think this topic is particularly deep, we aren't dealing with a complex socio-economic issue.
Your counterarguement to the discussion of dog meat is that anyone who is okay with eating dogs is okay with sex offenders molesting children.
My counterargument to the discussion of dog meat? Pardon me? And no, I wasn't arguing morality here, I was simply pointing out the uselessness of the idea of saying that if the majority thinks something should be banned, they should somehow stay their desire because there is a minority of people which disagrees. I honestly have no idea what you're blathering on about, Blasterion accepted my point anyway, I wasn't making a criticism of any of his moral arguments. I don't care what his or your moral arguments are, I think eating dogs should be banned because of the reason I gave. I'm not interested in changing your mind.
On April 16 2012 11:19 lorkac wrote: As for your attempt to move this to a populist decision ie "What matters is how many people will agree with you and will agree with me" then you're clearly already accepting that it is irrational and pointless that you don't like eating dogs. And yet, instead of simply being honest with yourself that you're in the wrong, you're hoping that if you simply have enough people who support you, each of them absent of any argument just like yourself, that maybe you'll be able to just pretend that your belief system, which you admit is logically wrong and unsound, will hopefully be accepted as correct despite all evidence to the contrary?
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?
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.
A lot of asian eat dogs because east asian countries were historically more farming based, meaning cows were not really on the menu, since if you eat your cow, you can't farm the next year, but dogs were plenty, and had less of a meaning. Even just 10 years ago eating "beef" in Korea was mostly for special occasions. 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".
I have no problem with anyone eating dogmeat or catmeat or whatever as long as they are treated well. These animals are only different to me because of the sentimental value they hold for me since I was brought up with them. It is much easier to connect with a dog or a cat than it is with a chicken or cow. Pigs, on the other hand, are different, because of their impressive intelligence. I think that if I had a pig as a pet I would feel more uncomfortable eating pig, and definitely wouldn't him if he died. Until then though, load up the bacon!
I actually happen to have had a teacher whose father ate dogmeat once :/
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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".
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.
I have a dog but I also eat dog (true story). Don't ask me how my brain works. 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?
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.
i agree with and understand your points but when i look at my dog laying next to me while im at my computer i cant help but think about how much of a part of my family she and my previous dogs have been. im not discriminating, i just i have deep emotional ties to my dogs that affect my decision.
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
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.
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
On April 16 2012 23:10 JimSocks wrote: don't really care what people eat. last couple years i've been traveling alot. eaten crazy stuff myself. also watch alot of bizarre foods.
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.
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
You cannot justify an argument by saying 'well if its ok with him its right', neither can you say 'its ok with him but its not ok with me therefore its wrong'. Thats cultural relativism and is more a political attitude than a moral argument. Moral Subjectivism is a very different concept.
On April 16 2012 11:49 Mirror0423 wrote: A lot of asian eat dogs because east asian countries were historically more farming based, meaning cows were not really on the menu, since if you eat your cow, you can't farm the next year, but dogs were plenty, and had less of a meaning. Even just 10 years ago eating "beef" in Korea was mostly for special occasions. 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".
Thoughtful post. However, you may be wrong with the reason about the lack of beef and why people eat beef more now. The poultry industry (especially for beef) grew immensly around 10 years ago, because farmers could make MONEY off it. You have been reading recent news about the beef tragedy in Korea right? Farmers can't sell cows and now not even making enough moeny to buy food for cows. In fact, there was a news that farmers try to sell baby born cows by giving 1 manwon. This is the truth, too many people went for bredding cows and now the market collapsed. The fault is also at the retail chains where domestic price of cow meat is WAYYY cheaper than what consumers can purchase at. (I think around x10 jump), therefore, people cannot eat kalbi as much as they want to because it is so damn expensive.
Just a lot of problems. I believe the rarity of beef in Korea relates more to how the market worked and such.
Nope, I don't find it "ethically correct" to eat dog meat for the following reasons:
Dogs are mainly carnivorous animals which means that breeding dogs in order to slaughter them is a costly procedure that would lead to a waste of $$$. Feeding animals meat in order to get meat (of lesser value) in return is not just a luxury, but also absolutely reprehensible from my perspective, especially since most of us I believe are humanists and would do everything to help the needy that starve to death all over the globe.
Also, dogs by nature are animals that do not accept the isolation and neglect, both physical and mental unlike most ruminants and poultry which are less domesticated and will be content with just food and a stable to stay in. It is understood therefore that in order to grow close to people, such animals need love and affection by their "breeder". Anything else would be considered animal cruelty in my view. To kill, therefore such an animal, which you loved seems somewhat hypocritical and inappropriate to me, not toward the animal but towards yourself primarily.
On April 16 2012 23:10 JimSocks wrote: don't really care what people eat. last couple years i've been traveling alot. eaten crazy stuff myself. also watch alot of bizarre foods.
Have you eat Rat BBQ in japan?
haven't been to japan yet. but, i've had snake, spiders, and all kinds of bugs before.
also, i've traveled in poor countries. there are alot of stray dogs. i think people raise them to eat leftover garbage or something. and they also eat grains like leftover rice and stuff.
On April 16 2012 23:10 JimSocks wrote: don't really care what people eat. last couple years i've been traveling alot. eaten crazy stuff myself. also watch alot of bizarre foods.
Have you eat Rat BBQ in japan?
haven't been to japan yet. but, i've had snake, spiders, and all kinds of bugs before.
also, i've traveled in poor countries. there are alot of stray dogs. i think people raise them to eat leftover garbage or something. and they also eat grains like leftover rice and stuff.
now that remind me, I used to eat spider soup when I was a child, my grandma told me it was fish lol It was supposed to cure something that I got back then.
On April 15 2012 12:58 Lu_e wrote: No I do not believe eating "Mans best Friend" is ethical.
I'm 100% sure Dogs are more intelligent than chickens, cows and pigs. Dogs can be trained and used as awesome tools/companions.
Can this be said about cow chicken pig? c'mon now....
are you kidding me? are you literally serious? Pigs are definitly more intelligent than dogs, possibly almost as smart as other primates.
Ok excuse my ignorance I should've known pigs are used in science and have shown their intelligence. But I cant help but break down my bias;
'How to use a pig effectively'? I know dogs can;
-sniff bombs, (can a pig? perhaps. not as efficiently/acceptable as a dog some may argue. pigs running arpund airports?) -protect you, (can a pig? though it doesn't bark, it could squeal? LOL even a medium/small dog could ward off small aggressive animals/other dogs who knows, they bark LOUD and scare some things bigger than themselves such as OTHER HUMANS FROM MY HOUSE, see: burglar... LOL at a pig doing that) -help hunt game, (can a pig?; track, duck hunting/grouse retrieval?) -disabled assistance dogs, (could a pig? similar to pigs running around airports, acceptance/tolerance of society.) -avalanche rescue, (picture the pig, LOL again) -control other animals, 'herd' as mentioned before
Can you not see this? Dogs are too awesome sorry. Please entertain me with pig uses; ( if you can; other than science uses? as that is a pretty grey area which I haven't even thought of in terms of dog) I have given many real-world examples above for canine.
On April 17 2012 02:57 Lu_e wrote: -sniff bombs, (can a pig? perhaps. not as efficiently/acceptable as a dog some may argue. pigs running arpund airports?)
Here you are actually very wrong Pigs are even better as dogs here.
Well to the other points Pic COULD be trained to all these except barking i guess. But they are pretty clever animals as stated before. We arent used to train them just becouse we are used to eat them. And dogs have this fluffy fur i guess this is a hughe thing here, as well as the sharp theeth, so they were usefull back in the times we needed to fend of enemys. Except that they are both nearly the same.
On April 16 2012 23:34 kyriores wrote: Nope, I don't find it "ethically correct" to eat dog meat for the following reasons:
Dogs are mainly carnivorous animals which means that breeding dogs in order to slaughter them is a costly procedure that would lead to a waste of $$$. Feeding animals meat in order to get meat (of lesser value) in return is not just a luxury, but also absolutely reprehensible from my perspective, especially since most of us I believe are humanists and would do everything to help the needy that starve to death all over the globe.
Also, dogs by nature are animals that do not accept the isolation and neglect, both physical and mental unlike most ruminants and poultry which are less domesticated and will be content with just food and a stable to stay in. It is understood therefore that in order to grow close to people, such animals need love and affection by their "breeder". Anything else would be considered animal cruelty in my view. To kill, therefore such an animal, which you loved seems somewhat hypocritical and inappropriate to me, not toward the animal but towards yourself primarily.
lol
Vegans actually raise dogs from pups on a vegan diet. Healthy, runs around and everything. Dog's "need" meat about as much people do--as in they don't. They're omnivorous. Much like people. And will eat whatever you bring to them.
As an American I would obviously never eat dog meat and would find it pretty strange if another American ate dog meat. However you would have to be pretty ignorant to think that every culture is going to share the dietary habits of your own.
Ethics aside, this morning a relevant clip from Curb Your Enthusiasm came up on my youtube feed. I think the ending sums up how most Americans feel about the issue
On April 15 2012 08:30 Bigtony wrote: The distinction I make is that cows/chickens/etc are raised intentionally for food whereas dogs/cats/etc are domesticated for companionship. I don't think there is anything morally wrong with eating them, I just wouldn't.
Same thought as me. I mean if there was a farm to breed dogs just to eat them, then I would have to group them with anything else we eat as meat.
On April 15 2012 12:58 Lu_e wrote: No I do not believe eating "Mans best Friend" is ethical.
I'm 100% sure Dogs are more intelligent than chickens, cows and pigs. Dogs can be trained and used as awesome tools/companions.
Can this be said about cow chicken pig? c'mon now....
are you kidding me? are you literally serious? Pigs are definitly more intelligent than dogs, possibly almost as smart as other primates.
Ok excuse my ignorance I should've known pigs are used in science and have shown their intelligence. But I cant help but break down my bias;
'How to use a pig effectively'? I know dogs can;
-sniff bombs, (can a pig? perhaps. not as efficiently/acceptable as a dog some may argue. pigs running arpund airports?) -protect you, (can a pig? though it doesn't bark, it could squeal? LOL even a medium/small dog could ward off small aggressive animals/other dogs who knows, they bark LOUD and scare some things bigger than themselves such as OTHER HUMANS FROM MY HOUSE, see: burglar... LOL at a pig doing that) -help hunt game, (can a pig?; track, duck hunting/grouse retrieval?) -disabled assistance dogs, (could a pig? similar to pigs running around airports, acceptance/tolerance of society.) -avalanche rescue, (picture the pig, LOL again) -control other animals, 'herd' as mentioned before
Can you not see this? Dogs are too awesome sorry. Please entertain me with pig uses; ( if you can; other than science uses? as that is a pretty grey area which I haven't even thought of in terms of dog) I have given many real-world examples above for canine.
when it comes to smell you really can't beat pigs, Pigs are also one of the best money generators, for one Truffle hunting comes to mind.
A Samoan guy killed and barbecued his pet dog a few years back, I remember the Animal rights people making a huge deal about it on the news and stuff, and the guy's like "I did this all the time back in Samoa" According to the authorities, it's all right to eat your pets if they are killed in a humanely manner. I wholeheartedly agree.
On April 17 2012 16:35 Lorken wrote: A Samoan guy killed and barbecued his pet dog a few years back, I remember the Animal rights people making a huge deal about it on the news and stuff, and the guy's like "I did this all the time back in Samoa" According to the authorities, it's all right to eat your pets if they are killed in a humanely manner. I wholeheartedly agree.
Aren't or weren't Samoans cannibals aswell?
If it's ok to eat pets then i guess it should be ok to eat humans aswell. If they are killed in a humanely manner that is.
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.
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
You cannot justify an argument by saying 'well if its ok with him its right', neither can you say 'its ok with him but its not ok with me therefore its wrong'. Thats cultural relativism and is more a political attitude than a moral argument. Moral Subjectivism is a very different concept.
Its not cultural relativism, you're just misunderstanding. Because a decision is based on emotion doesn't necessarily make it irrational. I would be disgusted if I ate a pile of shit. That is an emotional response. Do I care if you eat shit? Go for it. I do not like playing baseball. This is emotional, I simply don't enjoy the game. Do I care if you do? Nope. I don't like smoking weed as I simply don't enjoy the high. Irrational? I think not, just as I don't think you enjoying it is irrational. What about having intercourse with a male? I'm not down, but you can go for it. All emotionally based decisions that are not irrational.
I used to live in the Philippines. My father has eaten dog. My relatives and my parent's friends have eaten dog. I'm sure that a lot of my classmates at the time had eaten dog. I myself believe that there is nothing wrong with eating dog.
But I would never in my life eat a dog on my own accord. Personal preference--for the same reason I would not have sex with my sister nor would I like the feet of my brother. It just feels weird to me. It's not a best friend deal--it just seems odd.
I've killed/helped kill Pigs, Chickens, Goats, Cow, Fish, etc... Never dog. Maybe if I killed a dog for food I'd feel more comfortable about eating dogs? But that's a subjective opinion.
Objectively there's nothing wrong with eating dog. Not because I say so--but because there's no real difference between eating dogs and eating any other animal. I, for example, hate eating grapefruit. Not for any moral reason, I just don't like grapefruit. Same with dog.
On April 17 2012 16:35 Lorken wrote: A Samoan guy killed and barbecued his pet dog a few years back, I remember the Animal rights people making a huge deal about it on the news and stuff, and the guy's like "I did this all the time back in Samoa" According to the authorities, it's all right to eat your pets if they are killed in a humanely manner. I wholeheartedly agree.
Aren't or weren't Samoans cannibals aswell?
If it's ok to eat pets then i guess it should be ok to eat humans aswell. If they are killed in a humanely manner that is.
There have been tribes that would consume the enemy warriors of another tribe. It really doesn't seem morally wrong tbh, unless the war against the other tribe was unjustified to begin with. But really your analogy is worthless because humans are worth more than animals. There is nothing 'inherent' in that superiority, there is no moral code hardwired into the universe, it is simply an emotional response, which, as said in my previous post, is not irrational. Our morals come from our emotions.
On April 17 2012 16:35 Lorken wrote: A Samoan guy killed and barbecued his pet dog a few years back, I remember the Animal rights people making a huge deal about it on the news and stuff, and the guy's like "I did this all the time back in Samoa" According to the authorities, it's all right to eat your pets if they are killed in a humanely manner. I wholeheartedly agree.
Aren't or weren't Samoans cannibals aswell?
If it's ok to eat pets then i guess it should be ok to eat humans aswell. If they are killed in a humanely manner that is.
There have been tribes that would consume the enemy warriors of another tribe. It really doesn't seem morally wrong tbh, unless the war against the other tribe was unjustified to begin with. But really your analogy is worthless because humans are worth more than animals. There is nothing 'inherent' in that superiority, there is no moral code hardwired into the universe, it is simply an emotional response, which, as said in my previous post, is not irrational. Our morals come from our emotions.
To me my dog is much more worth than some unknown guy on the internet and alot of other people aswell.
Are you ok with the consumption of dog meat? YES Would you ever eat dogmeat yourself? NO
Dogmeat is realy no different then the meat of anny other mammal (excluding humans..) so i dont see why people should not eat it (besides for beeing vegetarian) That said; while i do eat meat now and then,i would never eat dogmeat or the meat of a few other mammals like cats rats etc m(besides in survival situations) Not sure why but it somehow just feels weird to me, guess its cultural.
This is one of those questions I wouldn't like to think about. I suppose meat is meat and it doesn't matter where it comes from, as long as it serves some form of nutrition. However, I wouldn't go out of my way to eat dog meat. Something about raising dogs and then thinking about eating dogs; it's just not a mental connection that I'd like to have.
Why not, meat is meat. I dont really understand people not eating meat because the animal is "cute" I cooked rabbit for dinner for a girl i was seeing a while ago, she loved it right until she said "ive never had this before what is it?" She almost killed me when she found out id fed her rabbit. I really didnt think it was that much of a big deal. Funny though.
I'm personally more willing to eat something that looked cute in life than something that looked creepy or was dangerous. Call me strange, but if I'm not willing to touch an animal alive, I'm not that interested in eating it under normal circumstances. Ass backwards, maybe, but, as an example, I'd rather eat a cute little lamb or rabbit than a rattlesnake.
Dogs are just another animal. Just because they happen to be pets in a lot of places doesn't mean they should suddenly be off limits for eating. Would I ever eat dog? Probably not, because I see them as pets, but I don't have any problem with other people doing so. I mean, so long as they don't grab other people's pets and eat them, obviously.
On April 18 2012 04:44 Blacktion wrote: Why not, meat is meat. I dont really understand people not eating meat because the animal is "cute" I cooked rabbit for dinner for a girl i was seeing a while ago, she loved it right until she said "ive never had this before what is it?" She almost killed me when she found out id fed her rabbit. I really didnt think it was that much of a big deal. Funny though.
On April 18 2012 04:56 KrazyTrumpet wrote: Dogs are just another animal. Just because they happen to be pets in a lot of places doesn't mean they should suddenly be off limits for eating. Would I ever eat dog? Probably not, because I see them as pets, but I don't have any problem with other people doing so. I mean, so long as they don't grab other people's pets and eat them, obviously.
On April 18 2012 04:44 Blacktion wrote: Why not, meat is meat. I dont really understand people not eating meat because the animal is "cute" I cooked rabbit for dinner for a girl i was seeing a while ago, she loved it right until she said "ive never had this before what is it?" She almost killed me when she found out id fed her rabbit. I really didnt think it was that much of a big deal. Funny though.
How is rabbit? I've always been curious to try.
Rabbit is tasty as shit, very reluctant a couple weeks ago when I tried it, but my god the flavor.
If I look at it from a purely logical standpoint, I would be fine with eating it, as dogs are animals like pigs or cows which I do eat. I still would not eat dog meat or even rabbit, because dogs and rabbits are more like cute pets (which I guess is a cultural thing). Then again, pigs are amazing and smart animals, so thinking about it saying I only eat certain kinds of meat is having unjustified double standards.
I guess the only solution is to continue not to think about it too much, or to stop eating meat entirely... (or to start considering to eat dog meat as well).
On April 18 2012 05:24 ancientmariner wrote: If I look at it from a purely logical standpoint, I would be fine with eating it, as dogs are animals like pigs or cows which I do eat. I still would not eat dog meat or even rabbit, because dogs and rabbits are more like cute pets (which I guess is a cultural thing). Then again, pigs are amazing and smart animals, so thinking about it saying I only eat certain kinds of meat is having unjustified double standards.
I guess the only solution is to continue not to think about it too much, or to stop eating meat entirely... (or to start considering to eat dog meat as well).
But pigs aren't really used as cute pets, so I think your standards are still fine. Being an amazing or smart animal is a different standard - although I think intelligence is definitely one that's worth adding, if its any determinant of the amount of awareness and pain animals may feel while being killed (even humanely).
I'm pretty sure that's the reason so many dislike the seal hunt too. They're "cute" - but again that's just a cultural standard, to have a psychological aversion towards eating harmless, pet-like animals, and definitely shouldn't be used as a substantial argument (not that you are).
I think the real solution is to switch to lab-grown meat, which should be coming up just around the corner! Either that or find a way to flavour vegetarian meals, as well as modifying their texture to taste more like meat (i.e. veggie-burgers). Then, hopefully, it would be indistinguishable. Just as long as that flavouring passes the safety test of course.
On April 18 2012 05:24 ancientmariner wrote: If I look at it from a purely logical standpoint, I would be fine with eating it, as dogs are animals like pigs or cows which I do eat. I still would not eat dog meat or even rabbit, because dogs and rabbits are more like cute pets (which I guess is a cultural thing). Then again, pigs are amazing and smart animals, so thinking about it saying I only eat certain kinds of meat is having unjustified double standards.
I guess the only solution is to continue not to think about it too much, or to stop eating meat entirely... (or to start considering to eat dog meat as well).
But pigs aren't really used as cute pets, so I think your standards are still fine.
Why would anybody be ashamed of eating dog meat? First off, we (as humans) didn't make it to the top of the food chain by being picky eaters. Second of all, last time I checked, dogs are just as much of an animal as the average cow/goat/chicken/pig, and these are animals that people consider to be food.
I've eaten dog meat before, and although I didn't like it, I can say it was quite... the experience.
On April 18 2012 05:24 ancientmariner wrote: If I look at it from a purely logical standpoint, I would be fine with eating it, as dogs are animals like pigs or cows which I do eat. I still would not eat dog meat or even rabbit, because dogs and rabbits are more like cute pets (which I guess is a cultural thing). Then again, pigs are amazing and smart animals, so thinking about it saying I only eat certain kinds of meat is having unjustified double standards.
I guess the only solution is to continue not to think about it too much, or to stop eating meat entirely... (or to start considering to eat dog meat as well).
But pigs aren't really used as cute pets, so I think your standards are still fine.
On April 18 2012 05:24 ancientmariner wrote: If I look at it from a purely logical standpoint, I would be fine with eating it, as dogs are animals like pigs or cows which I do eat. I still would not eat dog meat or even rabbit, because dogs and rabbits are more like cute pets (which I guess is a cultural thing). Then again, pigs are amazing and smart animals, so thinking about it saying I only eat certain kinds of meat is having unjustified double standards.
I guess the only solution is to continue not to think about it too much, or to stop eating meat entirely... (or to start considering to eat dog meat as well).
But pigs aren't really used as cute pets, so I think your standards are still fine.
I beg to differ!
That's a cutie
Looks delicious, and I don't think pigs are skinned and cooked alive like cats and dogs are...
as an animal lover, i'd like to find a legitimate argument against eating dog meat.. but i can't see it. there is no real difference between a dog and other animals that i am prepared to eat, save that dogs make more common pets and are often more domesticated.
the manner in which the meat is prepared is a different story, and not really relevant to this particular question.
On April 18 2012 11:30 anycolourfloyd wrote: as an animal lover, i'd like to find a legitimate argument against eating dog meat.. but i can't see it. there is no real difference between a dog and other animals that i am prepared to eat, save that dogs make more common pets and are often more domesticated.
the manner in which the meat is prepared is a different story, and not really relevant to this particular question.
Time to make a new thread then, animal cruelty in Asia.
On April 18 2012 11:30 anycolourfloyd wrote: as an animal lover, i'd like to find a legitimate argument against eating dog meat.. but i can't see it. there is no real difference between a dog and other animals that i am prepared to eat, save that dogs make more common pets and are often more domesticated.
the manner in which the meat is prepared is a different story, and not really relevant to this particular question.
Time to make a new thread then, animal cruelty in Asia.
You start the thread, I'll start taking bets on how long it takes before the mods close it to avoid getting RSI from banning people.
I think people kind of jump over the whole question of how dog meat is produced for your consumption. Dogs are not herd animals such as sheep, cows, pigs. These dogs that you eat are either strays, family dogs gone missing, fur trade byproduct or a dog meat farm.
Now ask yourself how a dog meat farm will be run ... They can not be allowed to run around free, so forget about humane treatment. Look into what these farms look like and imagine the life of the animal before it ends up on your plate. If you have no empathy towards animals, especially animals bred to help us and a big factor in our early success as well as work mates for herding and as companions, then you might not give a second thought to how much suffering is needlessly put forth so you can taste dog meat and brag about it.
You might think the PETA videos of these farms from China and elsewhere in Asia especially are loaded, but they'll give you an idea of the worst of it. Are you sure where your meat is coming from, or do you even care ?
If you do not care how your food is produced I'd say you are a morally corrupt person.
Man has evolved beyond the Darwinian domain. We do not eat one animal or the other just to survive, except in rare cases. Personally.
If there ever will be stem cell produced steaks / cloned I'll switch over to that instantly.
On April 18 2012 12:05 absalom86 wrote: I think people kind of jump over the whole question of how dog meat is produced for your consumption. Dogs are not herd animals such as sheep, cows, pigs. These dogs that you eat are either strays, family dogs gone missing, fur trade byproduct or a dog meat farm.
Now ask yourself how a dog meat farm will be run ... They can not be allowed to run around free, so forget about humane treatment. Look into what these farms look like and imagine the life of the animal before it ends up on your plate. If you have no empathy towards animals, especially animals bred to help us and a big factor in our early success as well as work mates for herding and as companions, then you might not give a second thought to how much suffering is needlessly put forth so you can taste dog meat and brag about it.
You might think the PETA videos of these farms from China and elsewhere in Asia especially are loaded, but they'll give you an idea of the worst of it. Are you sure where your meat is coming from, or do you even care ?
If you do not care how your food is produced I'd say you are a morally corrupt person.
Man has evolved beyond the Darwinian domain. We do not eat one animal or the other just to survive, except in rare cases. Personally.
If there ever will be stem cell produced steaks / cloned I'll switch over to that instantly.
The thing is though, most pig/chicken/cow/whatever plants are nearly the exact same way if not worse. (The chicken ones are especially revolting.)
On April 18 2012 12:05 absalom86 wrote: I think people kind of jump over the whole question of how dog meat is produced for your consumption. Dogs are not herd animals such as sheep, cows, pigs. These dogs that you eat are either strays, family dogs gone missing, fur trade byproduct or a dog meat farm.
Now ask yourself how a dog meat farm will be run ... They can not be allowed to run around free, so forget about humane treatment. Look into what these farms look like and imagine the life of the animal before it ends up on your plate. If you have no empathy towards animals, especially animals bred to help us and a big factor in our early success as well as work mates for herding and as companions, then you might not give a second thought to how much suffering is needlessly put forth so you can taste dog meat and brag about it.
You might think the PETA videos of these farms from China and elsewhere in Asia especially are loaded, but they'll give you an idea of the worst of it. Are you sure where your meat is coming from, or do you even care ?
If you do not care how your food is produced I'd say you are a morally corrupt person.
Man has evolved beyond the Darwinian domain. We do not eat one animal or the other just to survive, except in rare cases. Personally.
If there ever will be stem cell produced steaks / cloned I'll switch over to that instantly.
The thing is though, most pig/chicken/cow/whatever plants are nearly the exact same way if not worse. (The chicken ones are especially revoltings.)
I knew a guy who worked in a chicken farm, he literally would NOT eat chicken. Like, he'd skip meals in basic training before eating chicken. And that's just ridiculous.
I wouldn't have a problem with eating dog meat(I owned 3 dogs btw). I don't view it any differently than eating chicken, beef, or any other type of meat.
On April 18 2012 11:30 anycolourfloyd wrote: as an animal lover, i'd like to find a legitimate argument against eating dog meat.. but i can't see it. there is no real difference between a dog and other animals that i am prepared to eat, save that dogs make more common pets and are often more domesticated.
the manner in which the meat is prepared is a different story, and not really relevant to this particular question.
I tend to disagree and my argument behind that is that we as humans already have possibly millions of combinations of different meals available to learn and cook and eat, with a extremely vast range of differing flavours etc. With that in mind, why would a person want to go ahead and kill another living animal simply to enjoy its meat? Is it necessary to add dog to already long list of meat available?
It just seems dumb to decide to kill and butcher another species of animal regardless if its a pet or not, just to enjoy the taste of that animal. It is not a necessity
On April 18 2012 11:30 anycolourfloyd wrote: as an animal lover, i'd like to find a legitimate argument against eating dog meat.. but i can't see it. there is no real difference between a dog and other animals that i am prepared to eat, save that dogs make more common pets and are often more domesticated.
the manner in which the meat is prepared is a different story, and not really relevant to this particular question.
Time to make a new thread then, animal cruelty in Asia.
A thread on animal cruelty in Asia would be absurdly long.
If I had a dog, I might not eat dog meat. This is just like how a lot of people in Taiwan don't eat beef, because they work in the fields with cows for their living.
I'm going to get on a high horse (no pun intended) on this issue . . .
I feel like I'm in a huge minority here that absolutely has a problem with eating dog casually. It's clear to me from this thread that TL is very niche regarding this particular issue. The average person in North America and Europe would never approve of eating dog, and even South Korea is striving towards banning it (polling data reflects this).
These are domestic animals were talking about here, i.e. highly sociable, exhibiting emotions and traits such as loyalty, love, joy and sadness. It has very little to do with how "cuddly" and "cute" dogs are that stakes their place in modern civilizations. I mean seriously people, do we butcher human beings that aren't "cute" or "cudly" and eat them? If you're wiling to kill something that exhibits emotion and a high level of cogniftion (relative to the animal world), where do you draw the line?
Cows and chickens and fish are not sociable animals and have been bred specifically as livestock for consumption. They are not even remotely close to the intelligence of other animals (apes, dogs, dolphins, whales, horses). Honestly ask yourself, can you imagine a fish or a cow running to your aid when you're in need? Getting excited that you've come home, or staying by your the side of a dying relative until the bitter end? How can anyone not see the difference here?
I would strongly urge the people in this thread that seem to just want to "try something new" (and also those just trying to be agreeable in accepting other cultures) to at least heed the reasoning that Western Civilization has maintained against eating dogs, horses, dolphins, apes and other social animals. If you're willing to slaughter and eat creatures that exhibit behavior so close to that of yourself, then the taboo of cannabilism isn't that far removed from your reality. After all, when all "meat is just meat" then human flesh also qualifies.
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.
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.
I didn't want to get into this topic but... http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/obama-as-a-boy-ate-dog-meat/ Wow. How much more intolerant can you get? Come on its another culture. People need to learn to understand that food is food. Living things need sustenance to survive and killing other living things to survive is justifiable. Its not like they make CLOTHES out of dogs or anything.
On April 18 2012 11:30 anycolourfloyd wrote: as an animal lover, i'd like to find a legitimate argument against eating dog meat.. but i can't see it. there is no real difference between a dog and other animals that i am prepared to eat, save that dogs make more common pets and are often more domesticated.
the manner in which the meat is prepared is a different story, and not really relevant to this particular question.
I tend to disagree and my argument behind that is that we as humans already have possibly millions of combinations of different meals available to learn and cook and eat, with a extremely vast range of differing flavours etc. With that in mind, why would a person want to go ahead and kill another living animal simply to enjoy its meat? Is it necessary to add dog to already long list of meat available?
So where do you draw the line there?
And let's say I start my list with dogs... Shouldn't I add chicken then because I already have other meat?
On April 18 2012 11:30 anycolourfloyd wrote: as an animal lover, i'd like to find a legitimate argument against eating dog meat.. but i can't see it. there is no real difference between a dog and other animals that i am prepared to eat, save that dogs make more common pets and are often more domesticated.
the manner in which the meat is prepared is a different story, and not really relevant to this particular question.
I tend to disagree and my argument behind that is that we as humans already have possibly millions of combinations of different meals available to learn and cook and eat, with a extremely vast range of differing flavours etc. With that in mind, why would a person want to go ahead and kill another living animal simply to enjoy its meat? Is it necessary to add dog to already long list of meat available?
So where do you draw the line there?
And let's say I start my list with dogs... Shouldn't I add chicken then because I already have other meat?
Chickens are not intelligent or social animals. Very, very big difference. I don't blame you for not reading my long rant two posts above you, but there's a reason why Western Civilization does not approve of eating dogs, horses, dolphins, whales and apes.
On April 18 2012 11:30 anycolourfloyd wrote: as an animal lover, i'd like to find a legitimate argument against eating dog meat.. but i can't see it. there is no real difference between a dog and other animals that i am prepared to eat, save that dogs make more common pets and are often more domesticated.
the manner in which the meat is prepared is a different story, and not really relevant to this particular question.
I tend to disagree and my argument behind that is that we as humans already have possibly millions of combinations of different meals available to learn and cook and eat, with a extremely vast range of differing flavours etc. With that in mind, why would a person want to go ahead and kill another living animal simply to enjoy its meat? Is it necessary to add dog to already long list of meat available?
It just seems dumb to decide to kill and butcher another species of animal regardless if its a pet or not, just to enjoy the taste of that animal. It is not a necessity
you're assuming the nowhere is the world already dog. this is not the case, in korea they have (or at least used to have) a preference for eating dog rather than eating some other meats, for a variety of considerations. this isn't to say i want to try eating dog meat. i don't want to try eating dog meat. the whole point of the argument isn't whether we should be eating animals, it's whether it's fair to discriminate between dogs and other animals.
the whole loyalty and sociability thing with dogs (and lets face it, the cute factor) is why we don't like the idea of eating dog meat. i find this a weak argument though. this is, really, so that we don't feel so bad about eating meat. i think it's more a selfish reasoning than a logical reasoning. interactions with the animal are determined by breeding, upbringing and time spent with the animal. i spent 6 weeks training a sheep for as part of a research project and i can say that even though it was "just a sheep" (which everybody is quite comfortable with farming for meat) it wasn't easy holding its throat for the lethal injection.
edit: and the argument above me is specious at best. where do you draw the line? is it ok to eat afghan hounds, because they have a reputation for not being particularly intelligent? certainly we eat pigs, and they are not stupid. i'm fairly sure that the african tribes ate elephants and i'd suggest that if they were easier to breed, eating them would be much more commonplace.
On April 18 2012 11:30 anycolourfloyd wrote: as an animal lover, i'd like to find a legitimate argument against eating dog meat.. but i can't see it. there is no real difference between a dog and other animals that i am prepared to eat, save that dogs make more common pets and are often more domesticated.
the manner in which the meat is prepared is a different story, and not really relevant to this particular question.
I tend to disagree and my argument behind that is that we as humans already have possibly millions of combinations of different meals available to learn and cook and eat, with a extremely vast range of differing flavours etc. With that in mind, why would a person want to go ahead and kill another living animal simply to enjoy its meat? Is it necessary to add dog to already long list of meat available?
It just seems dumb to decide to kill and butcher another species of animal regardless if its a pet or not, just to enjoy the taste of that animal. It is not a necessity
you're assuming the nowhere is the world already dog. this is not the case, in korea they have (or at least used to have) a preference for eating dog rather than eating some other meats, for a variety of considerations. this isn't to say i want to try eating dog meat. i don't want to try eating dog meat. the whole point of the argument isn't whether we should be eating animals, it's whether it's fair to discriminate between dogs and other animals.
the whole loyalty and sociability thing with dogs (and lets face it, the cute factor) is why we don't like the idea of eating dog meat. i find this a weak argument though. this is, really, so that we don't feel so bad about eating meat. i think it's more a selfish reasoning than a logical reasoning. interactions with the animal are determined by breeding, upbringing and time spent with the animal. i spent 6 weeks training a sheep for as part of a research project and i can say that even though it was "just a sheep" (which everybody is quite comfortable with farming for meat) it wasn't easy holding its throat for the lethal injection.
:: pounces ::
Since according to your post sociability and intelligence is a "weak argument" against eating dogs, then I ask if you are against eating human flesh?
Intelligence and socialibility is what separates humans from other animals. If you are against eating human flesh (as I suspect), what is your justification for being against it?
On April 18 2012 15:12 Dreamer.T wrote: As long as they are put out in the most humane way possible, I don't see the problem with eating dogs, especially ones that are bred to be eaten.
Intelligent and social animals cannot be "bred" effectively as livestock to be eaten. You can google dog farms if you want. Research is key to understanding the massive differences between a fish/cow/chicken and a dog/horse/dolphin/ape.
If you maintain that dogs can be bred effectively as livestock, please provide proof.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
On April 18 2012 05:24 ancientmariner wrote: If I look at it from a purely logical standpoint, I would be fine with eating it, as dogs are animals like pigs or cows which I do eat. I still would not eat dog meat or even rabbit, because dogs and rabbits are more like cute pets (which I guess is a cultural thing). Then again, pigs are amazing and smart animals, so thinking about it saying I only eat certain kinds of meat is having unjustified double standards.
I guess the only solution is to continue not to think about it too much, or to stop eating meat entirely... (or to start considering to eat dog meat as well).
But pigs aren't really used as cute pets, so I think your standards are still fine.
I beg to differ!
That's a cutie
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I agree entirely with SCST's arguments. Though I would eat a human being before I would eat a dog (I never would). Dogs are much more likable than human beings.
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. "
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.
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.
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.
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.
[QUOTE]On April 18 2012 17:32 Hollow wrote: I agree entirely with SCST's arguments. Though I would eat a human being before I would eat a dog (I never would). Dogs are much more likable than human beings.
[QUOTE]On April 18 2012 17:39 Waterflow wrote: [QUOTE]On April 18 2012 17:32 Hollow wrote: I agree entirely with SCST's arguments. Though I would eat a human being before I would eat a dog (I never would). Dogs are much more likable than human beings.
hahaha i agree
humans are fucking terrible ^^ [/QUOTE]
Nice to know I'm not alone in my sanity with the two of you here.
On April 18 2012 17:39 Waterflow wrote: hahaha i agree
humans are fucking terrible ^^
Indeed. My feelings can be summed up with this Emil Cioran aphorism: “I would sometimes wish I were a cannibal – less for the pleasure of eating someone than for the pleasure of vomiting him.”
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.
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 you 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.
All well and good, but there's something missing from your logical statement.. just as the point of cooking bronze leaguers..
if you found a human that had the social/intelligence of a chicken.. would you consider it up for consumption? there are those in hospitals that's nothing more than living meat.. no brain activity above the most basic functions.. by comparison a cow would be Howard... and a dog would be Sheldon or are there other things that holds back someone that loves to eat even dogs? By your logic.. it shouldnt be a problem.. but in normal cases there is. The poor thing in the hospital would not be eaten. Many would say "pull the plug and bury the body".. but who would say "so...who wants the leg?" By all probability the chef down at the dog meat diner at the corner would never even think about it.. and if he did, i would be concerned that it wasn't fido in those burgers..
sure you have an argument based on logic, but you don't add all the variables..
On April 18 2012 17:39 Waterflow wrote: hahaha i agree
humans are fucking terrible ^^
Indeed. My feelings can be summed up with this Emil Cioran aphorism: “I would sometimes wish I were a cannibal – less for the pleasure of eating someone than for the pleasure of vomiting him.”
XD good one!
Sometimes i have thought that what if "our" planet consisted of only animals in the first place and then we humans came from another planet to earth to totally devour it with our greed and selfishness.
On the other hand i remember this movie i saw where aliens came to earth to destroy us cause we treat animals like shit. Don't remember the name of the movie though.
On April 18 2012 17:52 VL-Orion wrote: I am not okay with it (i have a german sheppard as a pet), but logically there is nothing wrong the consumption of dog meat so yeah =/
To me it is not logic to eat dogs or cats or whatever since im brought up with the fact that pets are something you love and nurture (not eat).
There is different kinds of logic depending on what your personal opinion/experience is.
On April 18 2012 17:52 VL-Orion wrote: I am not okay with it (i have a german sheppard as a pet), but logically there is nothing wrong the consumption of dog meat so yeah =/
To me it is not logic to eat dogs or cats or whatever since im brought up with the fact that pets are something you love and nurture (not eat).
There is different kinds of logic depending on what your personal opinion/experience is.
Even in countries like China, Korea, Vietnam where dog meat is very popular. Noone eats their pet!! This misunderstanding that alot of westerners have about Asian. We are all human being with affection to our pet, there is no way in hell people will eat their pet in normal circumstance.
Also, dog meat is not a daily food compare to beef., pork, chicken. I love dog meat but I only eat it once every few months so as most other people in Vietnam. I asked my Korean rommate and he told me the same.
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.
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.
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.
basically, we don't eat our own kind for two reasons. first, for most poeople, another human aren't part of their diet. Second, we are conditioned not to eat dogs, not because we've genetically evolved. Carrying over the same argument to eating dogs , to you, people who do eat dogs are not civilized enough to realize their wrongdoing, but that's only because you are taught and they aren't. i am not trying to disprove your beliefs, but people don't neccessarily need to agree with you, so where do we draw the line?
now we have laws to prevent cannibilism, (remember laws are rules to uphold social justice, so whether you believe cannibilsim/or w/e is right or wrong its prohibited) do you still think we are in danger to that path even if we decide to eat dogs? this question is of course contradicting, but my point is, your worry is needless.
On April 18 2012 17:52 VL-Orion wrote: I am not okay with it (i have a german sheppard as a pet), but logically there is nothing wrong the consumption of dog meat so yeah =/
To me it is not logic to eat dogs or cats or whatever since im brought up with the fact that pets are something you love and nurture (not eat).
There is different kinds of logic depending on what your personal opinion/experience is.
Even in countries like China, Korea, Vietnam where dog meat is very popular. Noone eats their pet!! This misunderstanding that alot of westerners have about Asian. We are all human being with affection to our pet, there is no way in hell people will eat their pet in normal circumstance.
Also, dog meat is not a daily food compare to beef., pork, chicken. I love dog meat but I only eat it once every few months so as most other people in Vietnam. I asked my Korean rommate and he told me the same.
No ofcourse i know people in China, Korea, Vietnam and so on don't eat their pets. That's not what im saying eihter and not what i meant.
I mean that i just see all dogs and cats like pets. So that's why i would never think of ever eating one.
But some people might only see their own dog or cat as their pets and the rest not. So that's why they have no problem with eatin dog/cat as long as it's not their own pet. But as i said for me all dogs and animals are pets.
I would never ever suggest that anyone in the entire world would eat their own pet. Never!
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.
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.
Nice little trivia, but it has no relevance whatsoever now to this thread. We have reached a point as a society that we can practically mass-produce anything we want. That is why the issue here is ethics, not practicality.
I'm Chinese and I have no problem with people wanting to eat dog meat. Personally, I do not eat it, have not eaten it, and this is the same for everyone in my family.
Eating dog is rapidly disappearing in the world anyway, no need for anyone to get their blood pressure up screaming about how Asians are pet-eaters or whatever. Most of the dogs sold as food in China are not ex-pets, by the way.
On April 18 2012 19:13 Loanshark wrote: I'm Chinese and I have no problem with people wanting to eat dog meat. Personally, I do not eat it, have not eaten it, and this is the same for everyone in my family.
Eating dog is rapidly disappearing in the world anyway, no need for anyone to get their blood pressure up screaming about how Asians are pet-eaters or whatever. Most of the dogs sold as food in China are not ex-pets, by the way.
"no need for anyone to get their blood pressure up screaming about how Asians are pet-eaters or whatever"
Has anyone even said that yet? I don't have the patience to look through all the comments.
Saying that is just stupid anyways because it's only a very very low percent of the asian people doing it.
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.
Nice little trivia, but it has no relevance whatsoever now to this thread. We have reached a point as a society that we can practically mass-produce anything we want. That is why the issue here is ethics, not practicality.
Well I can argue that our ethics comes from the different culture that we live in, and there is not one single ethics that governs all "right and wrong". To Asian culture, a dog is simply an animal just like what European culture consider a chicken. Would I feel comfortable eating a chicken if I have a really close pet chicken? It really comes down to the perspectic of different persons, and its not something people should condemn.
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.
On April 18 2012 11:30 anycolourfloyd wrote: as an animal lover, i'd like to find a legitimate argument against eating dog meat.. but i can't see it. there is no real difference between a dog and other animals that i am prepared to eat, save that dogs make more common pets and are often more domesticated.
the manner in which the meat is prepared is a different story, and not really relevant to this particular question.
Time to make a new thread then, animal cruelty in Asia.
A thread on animal cruelty in Asia would be absurdly long.
Yep, so many depressing inhumane stories, I recall reading an article on a female orangutan that was shaved down and used for prostitution. http://www.vice.com/read/yo1-v14n10
On April 18 2012 11:30 anycolourfloyd wrote: as an animal lover, i'd like to find a legitimate argument against eating dog meat.. but i can't see it. there is no real difference between a dog and other animals that i am prepared to eat, save that dogs make more common pets and are often more domesticated.
the manner in which the meat is prepared is a different story, and not really relevant to this particular question.
I tend to disagree and my argument behind that is that we as humans already have possibly millions of combinations of different meals available to learn and cook and eat, with a extremely vast range of differing flavours etc. With that in mind, why would a person want to go ahead and kill another living animal simply to enjoy its meat? Is it necessary to add dog to already long list of meat available?
It just seems dumb to decide to kill and butcher another species of animal regardless if its a pet or not, just to enjoy the taste of that animal. It is not a necessity
you're assuming the nowhere is the world already dog. this is not the case, in korea they have (or at least used to have) a preference for eating dog rather than eating some other meats, for a variety of considerations. this isn't to say i want to try eating dog meat. i don't want to try eating dog meat. the whole point of the argument isn't whether we should be eating animals, it's whether it's fair to discriminate between dogs and other animals.
the whole loyalty and sociability thing with dogs (and lets face it, the cute factor) is why we don't like the idea of eating dog meat. i find this a weak argument though. this is, really, so that we don't feel so bad about eating meat. i think it's more a selfish reasoning than a logical reasoning. interactions with the animal are determined by breeding, upbringing and time spent with the animal. i spent 6 weeks training a sheep for as part of a research project and i can say that even though it was "just a sheep" (which everybody is quite comfortable with farming for meat) it wasn't easy holding its throat for the lethal injection.
edit: and the argument above me is specious at best. where do you draw the line? is it ok to eat afghan hounds, because they have a reputation for not being particularly intelligent? certainly we eat pigs, and they are not stupid. i'm fairly sure that the african tribes ate elephants and i'd suggest that if they were easier to breed, eating them would be much more commonplace.
I can fully understand eating something if thats all that is available, but I am not in favor of eating something that is extremely unnecessary. I just dont understand why people need to add yet another living thing to their already vast list of edible animals etc.
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.
On April 18 2012 11:30 anycolourfloyd wrote: as an animal lover, i'd like to find a legitimate argument against eating dog meat.. but i can't see it. there is no real difference between a dog and other animals that i am prepared to eat, save that dogs make more common pets and are often more domesticated.
the manner in which the meat is prepared is a different story, and not really relevant to this particular question.
I tend to disagree and my argument behind that is that we as humans already have possibly millions of combinations of different meals available to learn and cook and eat, with a extremely vast range of differing flavours etc. With that in mind, why would a person want to go ahead and kill another living animal simply to enjoy its meat? Is it necessary to add dog to already long list of meat available?
It just seems dumb to decide to kill and butcher another species of animal regardless if its a pet or not, just to enjoy the taste of that animal. It is not a necessity
you're assuming the nowhere is the world already dog. this is not the case, in korea they have (or at least used to have) a preference for eating dog rather than eating some other meats, for a variety of considerations. this isn't to say i want to try eating dog meat. i don't want to try eating dog meat. the whole point of the argument isn't whether we should be eating animals, it's whether it's fair to discriminate between dogs and other animals.
the whole loyalty and sociability thing with dogs (and lets face it, the cute factor) is why we don't like the idea of eating dog meat. i find this a weak argument though. this is, really, so that we don't feel so bad about eating meat. i think it's more a selfish reasoning than a logical reasoning. interactions with the animal are determined by breeding, upbringing and time spent with the animal. i spent 6 weeks training a sheep for as part of a research project and i can say that even though it was "just a sheep" (which everybody is quite comfortable with farming for meat) it wasn't easy holding its throat for the lethal injection.
edit: and the argument above me is specious at best. where do you draw the line? is it ok to eat afghan hounds, because they have a reputation for not being particularly intelligent? certainly we eat pigs, and they are not stupid. i'm fairly sure that the african tribes ate elephants and i'd suggest that if they were easier to breed, eating them would be much more commonplace.
I can fully understand eating something if thats all that is available, but I am not in favor of eating something that is extremely unnecessary. I just dont understand why people need to add yet another living thing to their already vast list of edible animals etc.
Dogs were always already on the list of edible animals, probably going back to the beginnings of their domestication. You can't add something to a list when it has always been there.
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 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 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.
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 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 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."
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 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
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Zxocs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/did%20not%20read/grand/didnt_read_fat_guy_dancing_gif.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/154/912/berneydidnotread.gif?1318992465)
![[image loading]](http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/198/460/iwkoqt.gif?1321057725)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GpMCO.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.tshirtlaundry.com/assets/images/photos/SimpsonsFoodChain12_2009.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://28.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwwfxq89DJ1qatnm4o1_500.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.1800-pet-shed.com/files/2012/03/What-You-Need-To-Know-About-Pet-Pigs.jpg)
