Farming Dogs

[Brother AJ]

Would you object to the following practice of raising and using dogs for a source of food? Why or why not?

 

[Claire Diviner]

I believe raising any animal for the sake of food in such unsanitary and abusive conditions is what's wholly wrong, never mind what China does to dogs. Sad truth is, the U.S. isn't much different with the way they raise and slaughter livestock for the same reason. The fact that some countries uses canines is relatively irrelevant, as any other country can look at what we do to cows and pigs with as much disgust as what we may see how they slaughter dogs.

What people need to do (and trying to get these corporate fat cats to do this is already lofty enough as is) is understand that if an animal is raised with care, and raised in a happy life, in sanitary conditions, while being slaughtered swiftly and humanely, many of us (minus most vegans) wouldn't have a big issue with it. On top of that, it's been shown that properly raising animals (livestock or otherwise) will improve the quality of the meat they produce.

 

[Sparklepower]

Obviously in our culture (and most cultures in developed countries) we tend to object to raising dogs for food because we consider them friends and pets. If another country with a different culture were doing this, I'd have no objections. It's not really any different than the way we raise cows/pigs/chickens.

If the U.S. were to do it, and it were made legal, I'd probably be a bit uncomfortable but I'd accept it.

 

[Sucumbio]

That's some bull**** right there. At least cows are grass vacuums poop factories. Dogs actually serve a purpose. They're intelligent enough to warrant a station above typical usda choice meats. They eat cats too but I can let that slide cause I prefer dogs to cats.

 

[Claire Diviner]

That's some bull**** right there. At least cows are grass vacuums poop factories. Dogs actually serve a purpose. They're intelligent enough to warrant a station above typical usda choice meats. They eat cats too but I can let that slide cause I prefer dogs to cats.

I'm more a cat person myself, and though I do see your point, since I too feel the same way, if a country's customs includes eating animals we in the U.S. won't eat (let alone cats and dogs), who are we to question them? I'm more concerned for sanitation and at least letting the animals live even half-decent lives.

 

[Sucumbio]

The difference I believe is that we can prove objectively that dogs are useful for far more than other animals. I liken the eating of dogs to that of horses. Not to mention it's been argued that dogs were instrumental in our own evolution. I am not even sure how farming dogs is more economical. I think it must be a matter of taste. Just another reason I'm glad my family immigrated from there cause China's an ass backwards ****hole in so many ways.

 

[Claire Diviner]

The difference I believe is that we can prove objectively that dogs are useful for far more than other animals. I liken the eating of dogs to that of horses. Not to mention it's been argued that dogs were instrumental in our own evolution. I am not even sure how farming dogs is more economical. I think it must be a matter of taste. Just another reason I'm glad my family immigrated from there cause China's an *** backwards ****hole in so many ways.

I can't argue with that, though as far as evolution go, couldn't the same be true for cows and pigs (the latter of which has been proven to be very intelligent with varied emotions), what with the advent of agriculture early in our existence? I'm not saying China is right or wrong (at least in the case of dog/cat eating), but it's not something I would agree with myself. Besides, I like cow beef and pig bacon, and couldn't get myself to eat dog or cat meat.

 

[Desu_Maiden]

Since I'm Chinese, I have nothing against raising dogs for food. After all, you raise pigs and cows as food, so why can't other people raise dogs as food? There are people who also have pigs and cows as pets I bet. It might not be culturally acceptable to eat dogs in the West, but in China and Korea, people don't have any qualms against eating dogs.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Since I'm Chinese, I have nothing against raising dogs for food. After all, you raise pigs and cows as food, so why can't other people raise dogs as food? There are people who also have pigs and cows as pets I bet. It might not be culturally acceptable to eat dogs in the West, but in China and Korea, people don't have any qualms against eating dogs.

My point exactly. Also, there are people who have cows and pigs for pets (even people in the U.S. have pet pigs), and in India, cows are considered sacred creatures, hence the lack of beef consumption.

As I stated, while people in the west may not see the appeal in eating cats and dogs, we can't judge other countries for consuming them because of our own customs.

 

[Sucumbio]

Since I'm Chinese, I have nothing against raising dogs for food. After all, you raise pigs and cows as food, so why can't other people raise dogs as food? There are people who also have pigs and cows as pets I bet. It might not be culturally acceptable to eat dogs in the West, but in China and Korea, people don't have any qualms against eating dogs.

I'm Chinese too and yet I think it's a ridiculous and unnecessary practice. Unless we're saying that the dogs that are eaten in China have been bred down, then I may be able to accept it. But I don't know that's the case, maybe the OP could elucidate this further. I can only hope that they are... bred so far down that they barely know what's going on... but humans specifically bred dogs as work companions and household guards, etc. They were bred UP, to achieve maximum utility. To then take that creation, that painstakingly intricate creation, and waste it on supper, it just seems stupid. Lazy even. I've always likened dog-eaters to peoples of the Earth who'd be better off starved out of existence anyway, but that's just me.

The OP asked "why or why not?" I can absolutely answer why not: they're more important to humans as work animals and companions than as a food source. But so far the only answer people have given in favor of is ambivalence? That's not an answer, that's a cop out. Categorically show why it's a GOOD thing to eat dogs. Does this somehow help us somehow? Are there starving populations in China that can ONLY eat dogs? (no). This isn't about cultural difference. It's about China being one foot in the 3rd world still.

@ Claire Diviner Unfortunately, you're right. Pigs are actually quite intelligent which is why it's a shame they taste so good Now if they actually could serve some purpose like dogs do (a seeing-eye pig? a hunting pig? uh... a firepig! I dunno, ANYTHING) then I could get behind ceasing to eat pig. But so far all I know is that they're more intelligent than cows.

As for cows being sacred in India, that's a religious reason, so I can't find anything objective there. At least I could be convinced that eating dog is acceptable if there really is an objective reason for (which I'm hoping someone will share with the class).

My point about evolution was mainly to illustrate how we'd not gotten past the cave man days had it not been for dogs. They were instrumental in our ability to hunt, which lead to our ability to cook, and eat red meat, which led to our brains growing bigger. We owe our whole civilization to dogs, really. And we're just gonna eat them? Meh.

 

[Sparklepower]

I'm Chinese too and yet I think it's a ridiculous and unnecessary practice. Unless we're saying that the dogs that are eaten in China have been bred down, then I may be able to accept it. But I don't know that's the case, maybe the OP could elucidate this further. I can only hope that they are... bred so far down that they barely know what's going on... but humans specifically bred dogs as work companions and household guards, etc. They were bred UP, to achieve maximum utility. To then take that creation, that painstakingly intricate creation, and waste it on supper, it just seems stupid. Lazy even. I've always likened dog-eaters to peoples of the Earth who'd be better off starved out of existence anyway, but that's just me.

The OP asked "why or why not?" I can absolutely answer why not: they're more important to humans as work animals and companions than as a food source. But so far the only answer people have given in favor of is ambivalence? That's not an answer, that's a cop out. Categorically show why it's a GOOD thing to eat dogs. Does this somehow help us somehow? Are there starving populations in China that can ONLY eat dogs? (no). This isn't about cultural difference. It's about China being one foot in the 3rd world still.

@ Claire Diviner Unfortunately, you're right. Pigs are actually quite intelligent which is why it's a shame they taste so good Now if they actually could serve some purpose like dogs do (a seeing-eye pig? a hunting pig? uh... a firepig! I dunno, ANYTHING) then I could get behind ceasing to eat pig. But so far all I know is that they're more intelligent than cows.

As for cows being sacred in India, that's a religious reason, so I can't find anything objective there. At least I could be convinced that eating dog is acceptable if there really is an objective reason for (which I'm hoping someone will share with the class).

My point about evolution was mainly to illustrate how we'd not gotten past the cave man days had it not been for dogs. They were instrumental in our ability to hunt, which lead to our ability to cook, and eat red meat, which led to our brains growing bigger. We owe our whole civilization to dogs, really. And we're just gonna eat them? Meh.

In the modern world, dogs don't really the purpose of working or hunting anymore. Dogs are now mainly kept as pets for companionship with the occasional hunting dogs for those who hunt for sport.

We don't exactly have a huge dog shortage or something like that, so we aren't really losing anything by them being farmed. This is all a question of ethics, and I don't see where farming dogs falls below farming other animals. Sure dogs can have purposes beyond that, but farming doesn't need to be mutually exclusive to those purposes.

To put OP's question in perspective:

Would you object to the practice of raising and using pigs for a source of food? Why or why not?

 

[Claire Diviner]

The OP asked "why or why not?" I can absolutely answer why not: they're more important to humans as work animals and companions than as a food source. But so far the only answer people have given in favor of is ambivalence? That's not an answer, that's a cop out. Categorically show why it's a GOOD thing to eat dogs. Does this somehow help us somehow? Are there starving populations in China that can ONLY eat dogs? (no). This isn't about cultural difference. It's about China being one foot in the 3rd world still.

As far as why and why not goes, I can say that my views are pretty much identical to yours. If I had the choice in the matter, I'd make it so China didn't need to eat such animals... animals that are capable of self-awareness, emotion, and understanding of human language.

Unfortunately, you're right. Pigs are actually quite intelligent which is why it's a shame they taste so good Now if they actually could serve some purpose like dogs do (a seeing-eye pig? a hunting pig? uh... a firepig! I dunno, ANYTHING) then I could get behind ceasing to eat pig.

The thing with pigs is while they're not bred for much of anything, they still have a level of intelligence that beats some (if not most) dog breeds, showing the ability to learn at a quick level, having self-awareness, understanding of language, basically much of what a dog's brain is capable of. I don't know if you recall a story of a pig that sought help to save his owner who was suffering a heart attack, but don't take my word for it:

http://www.pigs4ever.com/news/1990/lulu_the_life-saving_pig.php

I would've used a more reputable site, like National Geographic or MSN, but they only display air times for documentaries/reports on the pig's actions.

My point about evolution was mainly to illustrate how we'd not gotten past the cave man days had it not been for dogs. They were instrumental in our ability to hunt, which lead to our ability to cook, and eat red meat, which led to our brains growing bigger. We owe our whole civilization to dogs, really. And we're just gonna eat them? Meh.

You're right about this point, though I don't think dogs lead to our ability to cook, or else we'd have dogs with toques hosting "Master Chef" or "Hell's Kitchen" today.

 

[Knife Myths]

That's some bull**** right there. At least cows are grass vacuums poop factories. Dogs actually serve a purpose. They're intelligent enough to warrant a station above typical usda choice meats. They eat cats too but I can let that slide cause I prefer dogs to cats.

You're basically saying that it's unethical for other people to eat the animals you have an emotional attachment to, and that they should only eat the ones you don't. Do you have any idea how absurdly narrow minded that is?

Furthermore, cows are much smarter than you give them credit for, and pigs are believed to be as smart if not smarter than cats and dogs. And if an animal can experience emotions and feel pain, does its relative intelligence really matter when considering how ethical it is to kill it?

 

[Sucumbio]

Sure dogs can have purposes beyond that, but farming doesn't need to be mutually exclusive to those purposes.

I think it does, actually. I believe this to be the reason we don't eat horses. They're far more valuable as work animals than as food... they're also quite expensive to raise, but that's another story. As for pigs, I think that if they were more than just intelligent as in they possessed utility of some kind, then I could get behind not eating them. Dogs have utility. They are... useful. Here's just a few of the ways they are useful. Note that not all the uses are still employed as you suggest, but there's still PLENTY they do, besides being "pets." I see the practice of eating dogs as being wasteful, and if you've read the other meat thread in the DH, I chose the eat meat all you want so long as you're not wasteful. Eating dog is a waste of a perfectly good dog.

You're right about this point, though I don't think dogs lead to our ability to cook, or else we'd have dogs with toques hosting "Master Chef" or "Hell's Kitchen" today.

LOL! No, silly they just made it possible to hunt which in turned led to us having the meat to eat. The cooking part is our bag, but the two needed to develop together to result in our mutual advantage. Dogs and Humans evolved together, really.

You're basically saying that it's unethical for other people to eat the animals you have an emotional attachment to, and that they should only eat the ones you don't. Do you have any idea how absurdly narrow minded that is?

Where did I say anything about emotion? I've actually argued without even mentioning that for the very reason that it'd hurt my argument. This isn't some fanciful notion, or some tear jerky reason. I place value in ability - in utility. If you insist this is a question of ethics, then it's only so from a utilitarian standpoint in my eyes. Waste not want not. Those dogs could be bred for far more important purposes - because they CAN be. You ever hear of a seeing-eye-cow?

Furthermore, cows are much smarter than you give them credit for, and pigs are believed to be as smart if not smarter than cats and dogs. And if an animal can experience emotions and feel pain, does its relative intelligence really matter when considering how ethical it is to kill it?

Intelligence isn't enough to me. It's more important to identify how the animal can benefit humans. If it cannot benefit humans in any way -except- as nourishment, fine eat the ****in' thing. But if it CAN do more than just be food, then let it. That's how I look at it, anyway, I realize my reasons may seem "emotional" or whatever, but it's really not... and like I said, I wouldn't be surprised if the actual dogs that get farmed in China are on the lower end of the dog-brain scale. What irritates me is that the Asian cultures that eat dog really don't have to, they choose to.

It's based on superstition dating back thousands of years.

AND China's even starting the process of stopping it.

It's noted that in times of war it was acceptable. I can agree there. In desperate times I may even eat another human being if have too. That's not what this OP is talking about. It's talking about an outdated practice that serves no purpose except to perpetuate an ugly stereotype that even local Asians want to forget (and who can blame them?)

 

[Knife Myths]

Where did I say anything about emotion?

They eat cats too but I can let that slide cause I prefer dogs to cats.

Your utilitarian approach kind of falls apart when you consider the extremely low percentage of dogs in the world that serve a practical purpose such as being a guide or police dog, or even being used for hunting. They're mostly companion animals now. And no one is saying that literally every dog should be eaten. "That dog could have helped a blind person!" is the "That baby could have grown up to cure cancer!" of animal eating arguments.

It's talking about an outdated practice that serves no purpose except to perpetuate an ugly stereotype that even local Asians want to forget

We're going off the rails a bit here by claiming it perpetuates a stereotype when only really terrible people apply racial stereotypes anyway. But if you want to bring race into the argument, how about the fact that "Eating dogs is wrong!" is an idea invented and perpetuated by white people and that doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with it? Anyone with half a brain knows that not every Asian eats dog, but obviously some people in different cultures do, and don't see anything wrong with it because it's a very culturally tinted taboo.

 

[Claire Diviner]

"That dog could have helped a blind person!" is the "That baby could have grown up to cure cancer!" of animal eating arguments.

It's not like people eat babies. Unless you meant abortion, but that's a whole different debate.

We're going off the rails a bit here by claiming it perpetuates a stereotype when only really terrible people apply racial stereotypes anyway. But if you want to bring race into the argument, how about the fact that "Eating dogs is wrong!" is an idea invented and perpetuated by white people and that doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with it? Anyone with half a brain knows that not every Asian eats dog, but obviously some people in different cultures do, and don't see anything wrong with it because it's a very culturally tinted taboo.

"Eating dogs is wrong" isn't a white man-exclusive ideal, as there are plenty of other races and cultures, including minority races (even those of Asian origins) who find eating dogs (and even cats) hard to stomach.

As for a dog's purpose, all dog breeds serve a particular purpose that is still being utilized today, though not on a widespread scale as - say - when they were first introduced. If I decide I wanted a bulldog purely for aesthetics, I could have one, but if for whatever reason, bating bulls ever become a thing again... well, bulldogs are there on standby.

Mind you, I'm not for or against China's consumption of man's best friend, but from the images shown, I am against the abuse and horribly unsanitary conditions in which these animals are being subjected to.

 

[Knife Myths]

"Eating dogs is wrong" isn't a white man-exclusive ideal, as there are plenty of other races and cultures, including minority races (even those of Asian origins) who find eating dogs (and even cats) hard to stomach.

Eating dogs has been taboo in European cultures for centuries. I can't personally find any information about a non-white culture having that taboo for more than a few decades, so I'm going to need you to back this up before I can accept it as fact. It's a pretty clear cut case of cultural imperialism.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Eating dogs has been taboo in European cultures for centuries. I can't personally find any information about a non-white culture having that taboo for more than a few decades, so I'm going to need you to back this up before I can accept it as fact. It's a pretty clear cut case of cultural imperialism.

So I take it Puerto Rican, Cuban, African, Native American, and Middle Eastern cultures don't count? I don't recall any of those cultures having any cultures involving dog-eating (emergencies notwithstanding).

EDIT: Here's a list found on Wikipedia. The list compared to the amount of countries and cultures worldwide is actually quite small:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat

 

[Knife Myths]

That article doesn't mention them at all; I'll assume that means they're not known to eat them, but that doesn't mean that they have a dog meat taboo. Actually, it does mention Native Americans, but says that tribes held wildly varying views regarding it.

I get the feeling I'm the only one reading that article you guys keep citing.

And I never said it was impossible that other cultures could develop a dog meat taboo, just that its prevalence, especially in regards to how Westerners see Asian cultures, is the result of imperialism.

 

[Claire Diviner]

And I never said it was impossible that other cultures could develop a dog meat taboo, just that its prevalence, especially in regards to how Westerners see Asian cultures, is the result of imperialism.

Because clearly Japan is a country who stopped dog-eating centuries ago because of westerners, and not because dogs were seen as companions in both battle and in the house, and thus worshiped as symbols of serendipity.

 

[Brother AJ]

That's some bull**** right there. At least cows are grass vacuums poop factories. Dogs actually serve a purpose. They're intelligent enough to warrant a station above typical usda choice meats. They eat cats too but I can let that slide cause I prefer dogs to cats.

Yes, first of all, you clearly do not know much about cows. This opinion seems to be based off of stereotypes rather than any actual facts.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-inner-lives-animals/201008/it-s-time-magazine-respect-cows


Second, how does having a “purpose” have anything to do with whether or not we should kill you? Couldn’t many humans be said to not have a purpose? Why are humans the ones defining what their purpose is anyway? Why is it that they can’t decide what that is on their own?

Since I'm Chinese, I have nothing against raising dogs for food. After all, you raise pigs and cows as food, so why can't other people raise dogs as food? There are people who also have pigs and cows as pets I bet. It might not be culturally acceptable to eat dogs in the West, but in China and Korea, people don't have any qualms against eating dogs.

The reason I brought up this topic was to examine the objections that people may have toward raising dogs for food, but it seems that everyone is going for more of the “moral relativity” route. No one seemingly wants to admit that they find what is done to these dogs to be “wrong”, and I question whether they’re holding back.

I find both to be objectionable, that is raising dogs or any other animal for food be it cows, chickens, or sheep. Where do you go from there?

As I stated, while people in the west may not see the appeal in eating cats and dogs, we can't judge other countries for consuming them because of our own customs.

It’s not really about “judging” anyone, but questioning whether certain harms actually need to be caused.

I question this notion of cultural relativity. If something is wrong then it must be wrong in all other circumstances, otherwise we are incapable of determining whether any situation is actually better than another.

We would not say this when it comes to harming humans, so why is it suddenly unacceptable to object to something that is being done to animals in another culture?

This is all a question of ethics, and I don't see where farming dogs falls below farming other animals. Sure dogs can have purposes beyond that, but farming doesn't need to be mutually exclusive to those purposes.

To put OP's question in perspective:

Would you object to the practice of raising and using pigs for a source of food? Why or why not?

I agree, this IS a question of ethics. If it is wrong to farm dogs, then I would suggest that it is equally wrong to farm pigs, and so all parties should refrain. Both are objectionable because they cause needless harm to beings that are capable of suffering.

 

[Knife Myths]

Because clearly Japan is a country who stopped dog-eating centuries ago because of westerners, and not because dogs were seen as companions in both battle and in the house, and thus worshiped as symbols of serendipity.

Read your own sources.

The same article you just cited says that the practice was never popular for religious reasons, and briefly banned in ancient history for largely superstitious ones, but Japan imported more dog meat than beef in 2008. And even if that were true, it doesn't refute anything I said.

For the record (And this is partially a reply to AJ as well) I see killing and eating dogs to be exactly as heinous as killing and eating any other animal. (And I eat meat.) But we seem oh-so-willing to give eating cows and pigs a pass while eating dogs is terrible because it's those other people who do it.

 

[Sucumbio]

Your utilitarian approach kind of falls apart when you consider the extremely low percentage of dogs in the world that serve a practical purpose such as being a guide or police dog, or even being used for hunting. They're mostly companion animals now. And no one is saying that literally every dog should be eaten. "That dog could have helped a blind person!" is the "That baby could have grown up to cure cancer!" of animal eating arguments.

That doesn't even make sense... you either should eat animals that are useful for other things (have utility) or you shouldn't. I think you shouldn't. And dogs "just as companions" seems to belittle the importance of dogs and their role: they help patients, ex-cons, the aging. They are fundamental in the lives of humans: still... Maybe not all, but many. Too many to just be ambivalent about the issue, to just say "oh well, China's just different than us, who are WE to judge." Should we turn a blind eye to every "different" practice in the name of "acceptance?" Besides, I'm not saying their in danger of being eaten out of existence. That's obvious. They're being FARMED so population-wise, even utility-wise, it's a non-sequitur. The point is a moral standpoint. Waste not want not. To me it's sheer folly. I wouldn't even say I'm -as- bothered about the conditions/treatment of farm-food dogs. It's the fact they're dogs that bothers me. Almost as much as it would bother me if it were reported that someone was farming humans for consumption. Dogs and humans are -that- intrinsically linked as far as I'm concerned (and according to more sources than I care to link.)

And upon thinking about it more, India isn't even that strange. The religious connotations aside, cow species (mainly oxen and bulls) are -required- to traverse the landscape better than horses. Their cows are our horses. We don't eat our horses, they don't eat their cows. Both for the same reason: utility. They just glorify it more (we don't worship the horse, but Native Americans do!)

We're going off the rails a bit here by claiming it perpetuates a stereotype when only really terrible people apply racial stereotypes anyway. But if you want to bring race into the argument, how about the fact that "Eating dogs is wrong!" is an idea invented and perpetuated by white people and that doesn't mean there's anything inherently wrong with it? Anyone with half a brain knows that not every Asian eats dog, but obviously some people in different cultures do, and don't see anything wrong with it because it's a very culturally tinted taboo.

Literally ask 10 people "what country eats dog" and I bet real money 9 of them will say either China or Vietnam. So that's not a small number of "really terrible" people, and no it's not because everyone watches National Geographic. It's because it's a typical stereotype of Asia.

Heck even Jackie Chan's Supercop jokes about it:

"Roast Cat with String Beans!"
(in amazement) "What did you order!?!?"
(suddenly shy) "Uhh... roast cat with string bean?"
(ponders) "... ...order another!!"

lol but seriously, it's funny because it's tragically sad. The eating of cats and dogs is taboo for a reason, and not just here, but even in the very countries where it's still practiced. So no, I am not "reducing" this to a quibble over race, but I AM going to point out that China's own population has (finally) seen the light and has realized that this practice is something that should go away. If for no other reason than because it makes them look bad. (Any reason is good enough, they may not see it as I do, as some ethical issue over utility, but who cares so long as they stop doing it.

 

[Sucumbio]

Yes, first of all, you clearly do not know much about cows. This opinion seems to be based off of stereotypes rather than any actual facts.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-inner-lives-animals/201008/it-s-time-magazine-respect-cows


Second, how does having a “purpose” have anything to do with whether or not we should kill you? Couldn’t many humans be said to not have a purpose? Why are humans the ones defining what their purpose is anyway? Why is it that they can’t decide what that is on their own?

Well we've both examined this topic before, and perhaps I wasn't clear in the previous topic, but just to be sure:

Animals are first and foremost a food source. From there we determine if they can be used for anything else. If so, then we can spare them the kitchen in favor of the plow. This is the way in which animals have been treated for how long? Forever? By us anyway... the "domestication of the animal" is really talking about the taming of the wild creature into the tool with purpose. Some really are just meant to be eaten. But others serve a far more important purpose:

You have 2 parties stranded in the wilderness. They both have a dog with them. One party waits until they can't take it anymore and finally gives in and eats the dog. The other uses the dog to help hunt for -other- food. Who lasts longer? Evolution tells us that the party who used the dog lasted. It's what got humans through 3 million years of evolution, it helped to be countless hardships, because companions make better outcomes. So yeah, I'm biased against animals in general. Their being alive doesn't instill me with this notion that I should protect them. Instead I feel they should be used to help benefit me in some way, the same as everything else around me. All things exist to benefit me. If they don't benefit me, then I pay them no mind. I don't go out of my way to destroy that which does not benefit me, the way some people do. But I certainly don't ignore the potential benefit an animal may provide.

 

[Claire Diviner]

For the record (And this is partially a reply to AJ as well) I see killing and eating dogs to be exactly as heinous as killing and eating any other animal. (And I eat meat.) But we seem oh-so-willing to give eating cows and pigs a pass while eating dogs is terrible because it's those other people who do it.

You imply everyone here sees killing cows and pigs more okay than killing dogs. I only said so long as ANY animal, be it cat, dog, cow, pig, chicken, even a freakin' tiger for all I care, were raised without abuse in sanitary conditions and killed as quickly and painlessly as possible (the closest to "humane" as we can get), then I will be okay with it, and so will other people, I'm sure (though not all).

 

[Brother AJ]

Well we've both examined this topic before, and perhaps I wasn't clear in the previous topic, but just to be sure:

Animals are first and foremost a food source. From there we determine if they can be used for anything else. If so, then we can spare them the kitchen in favor of the plow. This is the way in which animals have been treated for how long? Forever? By us anyway... the "domestication of the animal" is really talking about the taming of the wild creature into the tool with purpose. Some really are just meant to be eaten. But others serve a far more important purpose:

You have 2 parties stranded in the wilderness. They both have a dog with them. One party waits until they can't take it anymore and finally gives in and eats the dog. The other uses the dog to help hunt for -other- food. Who lasts longer? Evolution tells us that the party who used the dog lasted. It's what got humans through 3 million years of evolution, it helped to be countless hardships, because companions make better outcomes. So yeah, I'm biased against animals in general. Their being alive doesn't instill me with this notion that I should protect them. Instead I feel they should be used to help benefit me in some way, the same as everything else around me. All things exist to benefit me. If they don't benefit me, then I pay them no mind. I don't go out of my way to destroy that which does not benefit me, the way some people do. But I certainly don't ignore the potential benefit an animal may provide.

Yes we have, but I wouldn't say that we've gone over the topic at all in depth. There were many questions I proposed to you in the "When is killing animals right" thread that you never answered, and, no offense, but I continue to see you use logical fallacies to support your arguments.

What difference does it make how long we've been treating other animals this way? "Length of duration" does not inherently justify any practice. This argument was, and still is, in fact, used to defend human slavery.

An animal is not "meant" to do anything. All of these "purposes" were simply what humans chose to do to these animals, and yet you speak as though it was a matter of objectivity. There is no objective “purpose” in life, but rather this is something we must decide for ourselves. When it comes to domesticated animals as well as many wild animals we decide to CHOOSE their purpose for them, but how is this defensible? Who are we to decide what another’s purpose must be? Are human beings really this arrogant? Animals do more than serve humans; they relax, bathe, learn, eat, play, enjoy each other’s company, and just bask within the boundless pleasures that come with being alive. Why not let them have the power to choose their own purpose?

 

[Claire Diviner]

Are human beings really this arrogant? Animals do more than serve humans; they relax, bathe, learn, eat, play, enjoy each other’s company, and just bask within the boundless pleasures that come with being alive. Why not let them have the power to choose their own purpose?

The truth is, yes, humans are wholly arrogant, self-entitled creatures, and so long as our intelligence far surpasses other animals and have the technology to do with them what we will, we will forever be on the very top of the food chain. Humans don't let cows, pigs, etc. decide for themselves what lives they wish to lead, because for starters, they're not going to do much other than eat, sleep, and mate, and furthermore, we are a species constantly seeking control of everything. I mean, dog breeds today evolved because of humans, after all, and it wasn't by accident either; humans selectively bred and engineered dogs to become what they are now, even if they are intelligent, sentient creatures.

At the end of the day, humans can and will eat anything they want (provided they're not poisonous), and so long as there are cultures that exist where eating certain creatures is a normal thing, there isn't much a few can do against the many.

 

[Brother AJ]

The truth is, yes, humans are wholly arrogant, self-entitled creatures, and so long as our intelligence far surpasses other animals and have the technology to do with them what we will, we will forever be on the very top of the food chain. Humans don't let cows, pigs, etc. decide for themselves what lives they wish to lead, because for starters, they're not going to do much other than eat, sleep, and mate, and furthermore, we are a species constantly seeking control of everything. I mean, dog breeds today evolved because of humans, after all, and it wasn't by accident either; humans selectively bred and engineered dogs to become what they are now, even if they are intelligent, sentient creatures.

Did you not read what I just wrote? Other animals do far more than what you just listed. This is not some sort of "inevitable" thing. We have the power NOT to use animals in these ways. Refraining from breeding animals for these various purposes would be a good way to start, and in the meantime look after the ones that are leftover.

It seems, as of right now anyway, the only justifcation you have for continuing these practices is "might makes right". Have we gotten there already? We have the technology and the power to completely enslave these beings, but that doesn't mean that we SHOULD do this.

At the end of the day, humans can and will eat anything they want (provided they're not poisonous), and so long as there are cultures that exist where eating certain creatures is a normal thing, there isn't much a few can do against the many.

There are many things that the few can do against the many. Constantly throughout all of history beliefs that only a few people held have become what the majority believes through protests and social justice movements. It can, and will, happen again.

 

[Sucumbio]

What difference does it make how long we've been treating other animals this way? "Length of duration" does not inherently justify any practice. This argument was, and still is, in fact, used to defend human slavery.

Except it's also fallacious to make nature vs human comparisons but okay... I'll agree that we used status quo as a defense. Evolution isn't the status quo, though. And it was evolution I was referring to... so yeah. Evolution.

There is no objective “purpose” in life, but rather this is something we must decide for ourselves. When it comes to domesticated animals as well as many wild animals we decide to CHOOSE their purpose for them, but how is this defensible?

Our purpose in life is to better ourselves and our species, so that we may propagate and flourish and spread out (eventually beyond our own solar system). If you disagree with this, that's your right, but you'd be ignoring the flow of "purpose" throughout every generation of human that's ever lived. From the beginning of us, we have all sought this. To spread out, "conquer" what have you. So...

Who are we to decide what another's purpose must be? Are human beings really this arrogant? Animals do more than serve humans; they relax, bathe, learn, eat, play, enjoy each other’s company, and just bask within the boundless pleasures that come with being alive. Why not let them have the power to choose their own purpose?

Yes, animals do bunches of stuff, but none of that is relevant to what humans need them to do. YOU may be fine without them in your life, but you've no right to expect others to live the way you do, just because you've some fanciful notion that causing suffering in the world is a "bad" thing. Much has been accomplished by suffering. Heck, I just cleared a whole quarter acre of my backyard that was overgrown with weeds. I suffered from sweat, blood and pain. The weeds suffered from death. End result: I now have an area I can plant tomatoes in next year. ME. and MY tomatoes. F the weeds, they're in the way. Had it been a population of small critters in the way? Gone. Displaced. Removed. For the better of me, because I can. Yes this is "arrogant." Sky scrapers aren't built on the backs of platitudes, they're built on the backs of hard working -people- who clear away the detritus of their surrounds to make way for structures of true importance. Ever notice how Interstates don't go OVER hills, they go THROUGH them. And like the hill they displace whatever flora and fauna live there too. That is the legacy of the human. To change the world around them as they see fit. It's not inherently bad, or good, it just is. If you are so bent up about it, then go live in the jungle or something. The rest of us will enjoy steak dinners and air conditioning.

We have the technology and the power to completely enslave these beings, but that doesn't mean that we SHOULD do this.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't, either. One can weigh both in various lights, I happen to weigh things of this nature in the light of "what do humans get out of it?" By using animals, minerals and nature as we see fit, so long as it's done responsibly (i.e. not wasteful, not damaging so as to make it harder on us in the long run, etc.) we promote our species. How do you think we've gotten this far? It certainly wasn't by sitting idly by just "watching" the world go on about its business. No... we MADE this world what it is today, and we continue to do so because that's -our- legacy. Do we question why the beaver makes his dam? Do we question why one species feeds on another? Do we expect herbivores to always choose veggies just because an animal might suffer? We're not special, but we ARE alone. We have no one to judge our actions (and the actions of everything else) but ourselves. We are our own stewards, not God's, not Dolphin's or Elephants or Pigs or even Dog's. And we will continue to use that which is offered to us by availability. It is simply our job to do so responsibly, and THAT, is the challenge.

 

[Claire Diviner]

It seems, as of right now anyway, the only justifcation you have for continuing these practices is "might makes right". Have we gotten there already? We have the technology and the power to completely enslave these beings, but that doesn't mean that we SHOULD do this.

You imply I'm justifying it. Yes, we have gotten there, and we are still doing to animals what we have been since the earliest recorded history of man, so while I'm not justifying what we do to animals, I can understand why we do it. You may not like the idea, but you have to accept that power and control is embedded into the vast majority of man (if not all), and this includes the manipulation of other creatures, regardless of purpose or lack thereof. To believe that human beings as a whole can just up and drop everything we've been doing for millennia, something that's become instinctual, is rather foolish.

In a perfect world, humans could just go vegan (not that I would want to, mind you), and not have to have animals, like dogs, do anything for us. Reality check: The world isn't perfect and will never be, because humans doing what they have been doing has become a part of human nature.

 

[Brother AJ]

Except it's also fallacious to make nature vs human comparisons but okay... I'll agree that we used status quo as a defense. Evolution isn't the status quo, though. And it was evolution I was referring to... so yeah. Evolution.

I don’t understand the implication. What fallacious comparison did I make? Appealing to evolution is merely another form of an appeal to nature. You are asserting that what “is” ought to be promoted or accepted, but this is neither apparent nor inevitable.

Our purpose in life is to better ourselves and our species, so that we may propagate and flourish and spread out (eventually beyond our own solar system). If you disagree with this, that's your right, but you'd be ignoring the flow of "purpose" throughout every generation of human that's ever lived. From the beginning of us, we have all sought this. To spread out, "conquer" what have you. So...

Again, this would be subjective. I don’t doubt that humans will continue to propagate, but it doesn’t need to be done to the extent that it harms others, and this INCLUDES human beings.

We could keep “conquering” to the extent that we end up harming our own species, and we have certainly done this in the past and actually continue to do so today. I would argue, however, that to “conquer” no matter what the cost is never the “right” thing to do. If we are to accept this, then it is possible that what we are doing to other animals is not “right” either.

Yes, animals do bunches of stuff, but none of that is relevant to what humans need them to do. YOU may be fine without them in your life, but you've no right to expect others to live the way you do,

I have no right? Says who? Don’t you maintain that we are our own stewards? Here’s a question: why does ANYONE have the right to force or coerce other animals into doing their bidding? You seemingly object to me forcing my will upon others, but why is it okay when you choose to do so?

just because you've some fanciful notion that causing suffering in the world is a "bad" thing. Much has been accomplished by suffering. Heck, I just cleared a whole quarter acre of my backyard that was overgrown with weeds. I suffered from sweat, blood and pain. The weeds suffered from death. End result: I now have an area I can plant tomatoes in next year. ME. and MY tomatoes. F the weeds, they're in the way. Had it been a population of small critters in the way? Gone. Displaced. Removed. For the better of me, because I can. Yes this is "arrogant."

This comparison is ridiculous. Do you hear yourself? You’re likening pulling weeds to displacing and killing other animals! Is crushing a head of lettuce the same as crushing the head of a dog? I really hope you know how to answer that question.

“Much has been accomplished by suffering”, but that really isn’t the point. We don’t have to cause suffering to others when we have no need to do so.

Sky scrapers aren't built on the backs of platitudes, they're built on the backs of hard working -people- who clear away the detritus of their surrounds to make way for structures of true importance. Ever notice how Interstates don't go OVER hills, they go THROUGH them. And like the hill they displace whatever flora and fauna live there too. That is the legacy of the human. To change the world around them as they see fit. It's not inherently bad, or good, it just is. If you are so bent up about it, then go live in the jungle or something. The rest of us will enjoy steak dinners and air conditioning.

Our population is not sustainable within a jungle, so that’s obviously not the answer. Your opinions are awfully inconsistent. Is it bad to do anything, or is everything just as it is? If we are not to care that our interests’ displace or harm, then what exactly is to protect human beings? Do they deserve to be spared because they belong to the same species? That’s about as arbitrary as claiming individuals deserve protection because they possess the same skin color. Are you prepared to take your beliefs to their logical extremity and not care how the other human “fauna” are affected by our “legacy”? Thankfully most people DO see that there are “right” and “wrong” actions in these cases, but we needs to show them how this can be consistent with animal rights philosophy.

Doesn't mean we shouldn't, either. One can weigh both in various lights, I happen to weigh things of this nature in the light of "what do humans get out of it?" By using animals, minerals and nature as we see fit, so long as it's done responsibly (i.e. not wasteful, not damaging so as to make it harder on us in the long run, etc.) we promote our species. How do you think we've gotten this far? It certainly wasn't by sitting idly by just "watching" the world go on about its business. No... we MADE this world what it is today, and we continue to do so because that's -our- legacy. Do we question why the beaver makes his dam? Do we question why one species feeds on another? Do we expect herbivores to always choose veggies just because an animal might suffer? We're not special, but we ARE alone. We have no one to judge our actions (and the actions of everything else) but ourselves. We are our own stewards, not God's, not Dolphin's or Elephants or Pigs or even Dog's. And we will continue to use that which is offered to us by availability. It is simply our job to do so responsibly, and THAT, is the challenge.

Yes, we ultimately do have to govern ourselves, and this is what leaves everyone, including other human beings, extremely vulnerable. You suggest we take advantage of this, and act like giant asshats who apparently think there are no consequences to their actions? Good luck selling that to the world.

You imply I'm justifying it. Yes, we have gotten there, and we are still doing to animals what we have been since the earliest recorded history of man, so while I'm not justifying what we do to animals, I can understand why we do it. You may not like the idea, but you have to accept that power and control is embedded into the vast majority of man (if not all), and this includes the manipulation of other creatures, regardless of purpose or lack thereof. To believe that human beings as a whole can just up and drop everything we've been doing for millennia, something that's become instinctual, is rather foolish.

In a perfect world, humans could just go vegan (not that I would want to, mind you), and not have to have animals, like dogs, do anything for us. Reality check: The world isn't perfect and will never be, because humans doing what they have been doing has become a part of human nature.

I understand it as well, but I’m not interested in perpetually making excuses for people. Perfection is one thing, but showing basic decency is something else entirely. What I’m talking about NOT doing to other animals isn’t really asking for that much quite frankly.

Furthermore, I think you would have a very difficult time proving that a desire for meat and to exploit animals is part of human nature. Clearly, this is far from the case for many of us as we are disgusted by the sight and smell of meat, and in addition it conflicts with our NATURAL feelings of EMPATHY when we realize what it takes to acquire these products.

Even if it WAS true that a desire to exploit and kill animals was an innate quality within all humans, this would not be a valid argument for the continued killing of animals and the consumption of their flesh. Many qualities and emotions within humans are innate, including a desire to be violent or discriminatory, but simply because this is our reality does not mean it is valid to behave either way or that these aren't moral concerns.

 

[κomıc]

It is really sad seeing poor animals locked up. I think how they kill them is what bothers me the most.

If say in the future the world goes to ****, I don't see myself eating any meats because that would require me to kill an animal. And because I have a love for them, I can't bring myself to doing such a thing. I've considered going vegetarian or even pescatarian but I love my meats. But I can totally live off Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwhiches if I really wanted to. I may experiment with that and see how it goes.

Anyhow, I didn't know other countries actually farmed dogs. I think if you're against that then you should also use that same logic for other animals. But I understand where you're coming from (I love dogs!).

 

[Sucumbio]

I don’t understand the implication. What fallacious comparison did I make? Appealing to evolution is merely another form of an appeal to nature. You are asserting that what “is” ought to be promoted or accepted, but this is neither apparent nor inevitable.

Evolution is scientific fact, so it's not an appeal to nature... whereas comparing how we treat animals (nature) vs how we used to treat people, is a comparison by nature, so it's fallacious... as in it's a fallacy to compare the enslavement of animals to the enslavement of humans.

Again, this would be subjective. I don’t doubt that humans will continue to propagate, but it doesn’t need to be done to the extent that it harms others, and this INCLUDES human beings.

We could keep “conquering” to the extent that we end up harming our own species, and we have certainly done this in the past and actually continue to do so today. I would argue, however, that to “conquer” no matter what the cost is never the “right” thing to do. If we are to accept this, then it is possible that what we are doing to other animals is not “right” either.

Okay, in that case you missed where I said (more than once) -responsibly-. Responsibly propagating means doing so without creating situations where we'll wipe ourselves out (as is the case with the climate change crisis). It also means doing so without wiping out other species, plant and animal alike. It is our duty to preserve nature whilst living in our unnatural world. This is an argument from utility, which can be argued is the closet to "objective" you'll get in terms of the is/ought problem. Which we're both throwing at each other as the reason the other is wrong, lol. Kinda makes you realize that this whole debate is once again boiling down to preference. Which I suspected the moment I saw this thread, but I took a bite because I do believe treating dogs as food is bad, but treating cows and pigs as food is not bad. Again a preference, mind you, but at least I can prove objectively that dogs and humans are linked evolutionarily. They depend on each other, they did moreso in the past, sure, but even today they still do so. We don't depend on cows or pigs or chickens. We also don't owe them anything simply because they feel pain.

I have no right? Says who? Don’t you maintain that we are our own stewards? Here’s a question: why does ANYONE have the right to force or coerce other animals into doing their bidding? You seemingly object to me forcing my will upon others, but why is it okay when you choose to do so?

Because animals aren't people. They are sub-people. Sub-human (ew I know what a horrible way to put it, but it's truth). We evolved beyond common animal, and as such, learned to put them to work. Learned to put them to the fork. Dogs helped us do the latter, so I submit they're of a higher station than other animals (not necessarily pigs, definitely not horses, nor goats, or oxen or other beasts of burden). In many areas of the world animals do the work that would otherwise not be done, because humans either can't do it, or because machinery isn't available. True you don't have to pull your plow by animal any more... in America, but in the bushlands of some 3rd world outback? Yeah, I can see it. Perfectly fine in my opinion.

This comparison is ridiculous. Do you hear yourself? You’re likening pulling weeds to displacing and killing other animals! Is crushing a head of lettuce the same as crushing the head of a dog? I really hope you know how to answer that question.

Well good, maybe you can go one step further and see just how ridiculous it is to try and draw objective truths from any of this. What made you so expert in the "suffering" of living things that you should be okay with one and not the other? Because animals have brains it's not okay, but because plants don't it's cool? I mean, why don't all humans just feed intravenously if that's the case? Stop ALL suffering of any kind, yeah? Did you know the world's largest living organism is a mushroom? Or that the world's oldest living organism is a tree? Without any science to back your claims that humans farming animals is bad because causing suffering is bad, you have nothing to distiguish one form of suffering from another. You have no way to objectively show that eating meat and eating veggies isn't just the same darn thing. THAT has been my point the whole time, regardless of the million ways I've tried to say it. Show. Me. A. Study. That. Says. Something. Not some wack-a-do nut job, but a proper scientific journal entry, something that clearly shows that this suffering we're causing is going to harm us in some way. Maybe there is a Gaia and each time we slaughter a cow the negative energy accumulates more and one day it'll kill us all in the form of a virus? THAT I COULD BELIEVE! It'd at LEAST be scientifically provable... it'd at least demonstrably show that we're not just picking and choosing what level of suffering is acceptable. And if you go so far as to -define- suffering as ONLY something that can be experienced by vertebrates, or by mammals, or by creatures with brains, or what have you, you're still going to miss some species somewhere that doesn't exactly fit... you'll still just be purporting a lie.

“Much has been accomplished by suffering”, but that really isn’t the point. We don’t have to cause suffering to others when we have no need to do so.

I needed to suffer to get the garden ready. The weeds needed to suffer too. And whatever animals lived there (there was evidence that rabbits had been using the area, birds also). Sorry for them, but my need for a tomato garden is paramount.

Is it bad to do anything, or is everything just as it is?

So long as we're responsible about how we do things, there's nothing wrong with it. It's only when we put ourselves in harm's way that we need to be careful. We didn't know that cutting down forest after forest was damaging the planet irrevocably. Now it's almost too late. Indonesia has the largest remaining rain forest on Earth, and it's being slashed and burned at a startling rate, to make room for palm trees because palm oil exports are their number one source of income. They can't farm palm oil without killing much needed rain forest. Such an issue doesn't exist for cows in America. We can farm all we want, they just keep multiplying, so it's not like we'll run out. There IS an issue with Methane emissions (heh, cow farts) in and around large centers of meat production, but the US government has been working with local farmers to work on ways to actually harvest it for use rather than let it just go into the atmosphere (it's a bad greenhouse gas, worse than CO2).

If we are not to care that our interests’ displace or harm, then what exactly is to protect human beings?

We protect ourselves, of course. Again, being responsible means ensuring that "doing as we please" doesn't endanger our long term well being, otherwise it's a wasted effort. Farming animals is the answer to NOT killing animals to the brink of extinction. Heck we almost killed off all the buffalo - just to starve the native americans - but thankfully and through much patience, we were able to FARM them back to good numbers. It's a good source of nutrition too, much better for you than steer.

Do they deserve to be spared because they belong to the same species?

Deserve has nothing to do with it. Nothing deserves anything. Not human nor animal. That's kinda the point. We have to take what's ours... nothing is promised or handed to us.

but we needs to show them how this can be consistent with animal rights philosophy.

And there's the penny. Animal rights. Dude, seriously? Animals have zero rights. Whatever rights they may have -we- give them. How is that justifiable if we cannot also assign them a "purpose?"

Yes, we ultimately do have to govern ourselves, and this is what leaves everyone, including other human beings, extremely vulnerable. You suggest we take advantage of this, and act like giant ******s who apparently think there are no consequences to their actions? Good luck selling that to the world.

Well that's what I've been asking for, isn't it? Some kind of study or proof that farming animals is going to damage us somehow? Heck, I've just answered the question FOR you. With the methane issue, and I'll admit Texas is REAL slow to move on this, because they are in the hole financially due to the droughts that keep happening because of climate change that they themselves are perpetuating. But how about it, I shouldn't have to do your homework for you, let's have some other study, some other proof that farming pigs, for instance will somehow lead to our downfall, some cataclysmic paralysis of society, some huge disaster that could wipe us out for good.

 

[Brother AJ]

Okay, the multi-quotes are getting a bit excessive, so I’m going to break it down a bit so that we can stick to the main points.

Evolution is scientific fact, so it's not an appeal to nature... whereas comparing how we treat animals (nature) vs how we used to treat people, is a comparison by nature, so it's fallacious... as in it's a fallacy to compare the enslavement of animals to the enslavement of humans.

You are appealing to HUMAN nature in order to justify an act. This is an appeal to nature which is a form of the is/ought fallacy. Evolution is adaptive rather than prescriptive, and this means that simply because we evolved to do something doesn’t mean we SHOULD be doing it.

I also have no idea where you’re getting the notion that making comparisons between humans and other animals is a logical fallacy. Would care to show me whether this is on ANY list of formal debate fallacies, and why it is a fallacy? Your response also incorrectly indicates that humans are not a part of nature, so I suppose you would now say that we cannot compare humans with other humans?

Okay, in that case you missed where I said (more than once) -responsibly-. Responsibly propagating means doing so without creating situations where we'll wipe ourselves out (as is the case with the climate change crisis). It also means doing so without wiping out other species, plant and animal alike. It is our duty to preserve nature whilst living in our unnatural world. This is an argument from utility, which can be argued is the closet to "objective" you'll get in terms of the is/ought problem. Which we're both throwing at each other as the reason the other is wrong, lol. Kinda makes you realize that this whole debate is once again boiling down to preference. Which I suspected the moment I saw this thread, but I took a bite because I do believe treating dogs as food is bad, but treating cows and pigs as food is not bad. Again a preference, mind you, but at least I can prove objectively that dogs and humans are linked evolutionarily. They depend on each other, they did moreso in the past, sure, but even today they still do so. We don't depend on cows or pigs or chickens. We also don't owe them anything simply because they feel pain.

I did not miss your suggestion that we should propagate “responsibly” in order to avoid harming our own species. What I was saying is that you have yet to give a reason WHY we should avoiding “conquering” and harming our own species. You say that our purpose is to conquer, but this would suggest that we could conquer other humans as well UNLESS you have a good reason why we should do this to other species and not our own. It’s not like there haven’t been societies where one group of people lived under the controlling thumb of another.

Because animals aren't people. They are sub-people. Sub-human (ew I know what a horrible way to put it, but it's truth). We evolved beyond common animal, and as such, learned to put them to work. Learned to put them to the fork. Dogs helped us do the latter, so I submit they're of a higher station than other animals (not necessarily pigs, definitely not horses, nor goats, or oxen or other beasts of burden). In many areas of the world animals do the work that would otherwise not be done, because humans either can't do it, or because machinery isn't available. True you don't have to pull your plow by animal any more... in America, but in the bushlands of some 3rd world outback? Yeah, I can see it. Perfectly fine in my opinion.

Saying humans are humans and other animals are not is stating the obvious. This doesn’t suggest IN ITSELF why it is excusable to force animals to do what we want any more than saying whites are whites and other people are not justifies harming persons of color. You need to describe a characteristic that humans have that other animals do not that is RELEVANT to treating them differently.

Also, humans did not evolve “beyond” other animals. Evolution is not some sort of ladder of superiority with humans, of course, at the top, but a force that only allows species to better adapt to their respective environments. Humans are humans because they were able to adapt to their surroundings, and are not objectively “better” than any other species.

Well good, maybe you can go one step further and see just how ridiculous it is to try and draw objective truths from any of this. What made you so expert in the "suffering" of living things that you should be okay with one and not the other? Because animals have brains it's not okay, but because plants don't it's cool? I mean, why don't all humans just feed intravenously if that's the case? Stop ALL suffering of any kind, yeah? Did you know the world's largest living organism is a mushroom? Or that the world's oldest living organism is a tree? Without any science to back your claims that humans farming animals is bad because causing suffering is bad, you have nothing to distiguish one form of suffering from another. You have no way to objectively show that eating meat and eating veggies isn't just the same darn thing. THAT has been my point the whole time, regardless of the million ways I've tried to say it. Show. Me. A. Study. That. Says. Something. Not some wack-a-do nut job, but a proper scientific journal entry, something that clearly shows that this suffering we're causing is going to harm us in some way.

I have no way to demonstrate that killing a vegetable and an animal is not the same thing?! How about that there exists zero peer reviewed scientific studies that conclude plants are capable of suffering? On the other hand there are PILES UPON PILES of scientific evidence that indicate that other animals are capable of suffering just as humans do! A giant mushroom and an old tree do not change any of this.

The amount of information out there on the topic of animal suffering and cognition is simply insurmountable, so I hope you don’t expect me to provide information on every animal in existence. I have already posted many links within the other threads, so I would suggest that you do your own research on the matter if you feel the need to.

Furthermore, as I have already said numerous times before, I am not going to provide you with any evidence that indicates farming other animals is inherently harmful to humans because there isn’t such a study, and it’s not the point I’m trying to argue here.

And there's the penny. Animal rights. Dude, seriously? Animals have zero rights. Whatever rights they may have -we- give them. How is that justifiable if we cannot also assign them a "purpose?"

Assigning other animals an arbitrary “purpose” that they did not choose is harmful to them, while assigning them rights would, in fact, be beneficial to these creatures. Humans ultimately must be given rights as well, but this doesn’t somehow eclipse the objective benefits of awarding such rights.

 

[adumbrodeus]

That's some bull**** right there. At least cows are grass vacuums poop factories. Dogs actually serve a purpose. They're intelligent enough to warrant a station above typical usda choice meats. They eat cats too but I can let that slide cause I prefer dogs to cats.

Pigs are more intelligent then dogs.

 

[Sucumbio]

Okay, the multi-quotes are getting a bit excessive, so I’m going to break it down a bit so that we can stick to the main points.


You are appealing to HUMAN nature in order to justify an act. This is an appeal to nature which is a form of the is/ought fallacy. Evolution is adaptive rather than prescriptive, and this means that simply because we evolved to do something doesn’t mean we SHOULD be doing it.

I also have no idea where you’re getting the notion that making comparisons between humans and other animals is a logical fallacy. Would care to show me whether this is on ANY list of formal debate fallacies, and why it is a fallacy? Your response also incorrectly indicates that humans are not a part of nature, so I suppose you would now say that we cannot compare humans with other humans?

Saying humans are humans and other animals are not is stating the obvious. This doesn’t suggest IN ITSELF why it is excusable to force animals to do what we want any more than saying whites are whites and other people are not justifies harming persons of color. You need to describe a characteristic that humans have that other animals do not that is RELEVANT to treating them differently.

Also, humans did not evolve “beyond” other animals. Evolution is not some sort of ladder of superiority with humans, of course, at the top, but a force that only allows species to better adapt to their respective environments. Humans are humans because they were able to adapt to their surroundings, and are not objectively “better” than any other species.

Well, it all stems from meat eating. See... early hominids started eating red meat, which over time (evolution) enlarged their brains, which gave birth to "higher intellect." This higher intellect, coupled with a baser need for the strong to dominate the weak (seen in most all animal species) resulted in institutions such as slavery. Higher Intellect is what separates humans from all other animals. If pigs start to build nuclear bombs, I'll stop eating them. But for now the farmed ones just kinda sit there, waiting to be... farmed. *shrug* tastes good too.

I did not miss your suggestion that we should propagate “responsibly” in order to avoid harming our own species. What I was saying is that you have yet to give a reason WHY we should avoiding “conquering” and harming our own species. You say that our purpose is to conquer, but this would suggest that we could conquer other humans as well UNLESS you have a good reason why we should do this to other species and not our own. It’s not like there haven’t been societies where one group of people lived under the controlling thumb of another.

Why we should conquer is arguable. At this point in time, we've run out of Earth to really do that... and we've also evolved socially to believe that it's a bad thing to forcibly remove one population for another. But harming our own species, that should be obvious. Doing so results ultimately in our demise. There's no logic in committing suicide, certainly no objective benefit to it (not referring to sacrifice, mind you). So... burning coal = dumb because it'll kill us all. Eating cows not = dumb because it will not kill us all.

I have no way to demonstrate that killing a vegetable and an animal is not the same thing?! How about that there exists zero peer reviewed scientific studies that conclude plants are capable of suffering? On the other hand there are PILES UPON PILES of scientific evidence that indicate that other animals are capable of suffering just as humans do! A giant mushroom and an old tree do not change any of this.

The amount of information out there on the topic of animal suffering and cognition is simply insurmountable, so I hope you don’t expect me to provide information on every animal in existence. I have already posted many links within the other threads, so I would suggest that you do your own research on the matter if you feel the need to.

Furthermore, as I have already said numerous times before, I am not going to provide you with any evidence that indicates farming other animals is inherently harmful to humans because there isn’t such a study, and it’s not the point I’m trying to argue here.

Assigning other animals an arbitrary “purpose” that they did not choose is harmful to them, while assigning them rights would, in fact, be beneficial to these creatures. Humans ultimately must be given rights as well, but this doesn’t somehow eclipse the objective benefits of awarding such rights.

Well that's our problem, you and I. I care not for the point you're arguing because to me it's irrelevant tripe. What IS important to me, is the overall lasting impact farming animals will have on the human species. Think of it like this: if EVERY ANIMAL ON EARTH -EXCEPT- US died out RIGHT NOW, we'd still make it. This cannot be said for most other animals. They'd either die out due to starvation, or they'd end up relying on US to keep them alive. We don't need animals. You've said it yourself. So therefore, we don't need to consider their lives as anything but disposable. The only reason why I am against eating dogs, is because I feel we owe it dogs to get a pass being as how we've nurtured them and bred them specifically to be our companions and workers (and some would argue they nurtured us and progressed us just as much). I don't think we should eat horses. I don't think we should eat mules, goats, other beasts that serve a purpose. I realize you don't think it's fair to tell an animal what to do, but, hey, that's life. When they start fighting back, then we'll discuss it. In the meantime, they'll just have to live with it.

Pigs are more intelligent then dogs.

True. If they were as valuable to humans as dogs are I'd be against eating them too.

I have a question for the floor:

Why do Animals taste so good? If we really shouldn't eat them, that is, then why don't we develop some sort of mechanism in our palettes that make meat taste horrible? Meanwhile there's plenty of vegetables that taste horrible. I realize it's all "subjective" but that's okay... just humor me.

 

[Smash G]

I'd eat dog if I was starving. I'm not really a dog person though.

 

[Chinaux]

I believe raising any animal for the sake of food in such unsanitary and abusive conditions is what's wholly wrong, never mind what China does to dogs. Sad truth is, the U.S. isn't much different with the way they raise and slaughter livestock for the same reason. The fact that some countries uses canines is relatively irrelevant, as any other country can look at what we do to cows and pigs with as much disgust as what we may see how they slaughter dogs.

What people need to do (and trying to get these corporate fat cats to do this is already lofty enough as is) is understand that if an animal is raised with care, and raised in a happy life, in sanitary conditions, while being slaughtered swiftly and humanely, many of us (minus most vegans) wouldn't have a big issue with it. On top of that, it's been shown that properly raising animals (livestock or otherwise) will improve the quality of the meat they produce.

Can I just clear a stereotype really quick?

Chinese people do not eat dogs. Poor people eat dogs. It's not just a Chinese thing, it's something that happens in every country. When you have no food, you will eat anything. Now, yes, some poor Chinese people eat dogs, but it's not something regular people eat. It may be more common in China because of the large population, and how many more poor people they have, but they don't just choose to eat dog, they eat what they can, and if they find a dog, then they eat it.

 

[Claire Diviner]

Can I just clear a stereotype really quick?

Chinese people do not eat dogs. Poor people eat dogs. It's not just a Chinese thing, it's something that happens in every country. When you have no food, you will eat anything. Now, yes, some poor Chinese people eat dogs, but it's not something regular people eat. It may be more common in China because of the large population, and how many more poor people they have, but they don't just choose to eat dog, they eat what they can, and if they find a dog, then they eat it.

While that goes without saying, the fact remains that China is the most common country people think of when eating dogs come up in conversation. Also, China is notorious for its massive dog slaughtering for the sake of consumption, regardless of whether they're a common thing Chinese people eat or not.

Can we get on track with the debate now, please?

 

[bound_for_earth]

first of all think of it like this you are holding an animal in captivity that just wants to be free to run around and be free to do as he/she wishes. but you are literally raising them malnourished kept in a rusty cage only to then brutalize them. i might not be a vegetarian , but i think it is totally wrong to raise animals to eat atleast raise them to an older age and let them live free. people who eat such smart, fun and people loving animals are vile and discusting. the practice of killing and eating dogs is cringe worthy. eat all natural meat those animals were not kept in cages and were not forced to eat pesticide. do not eat dogs though dogs can be the best companion for you in a hard time.