The Instigator
Krookednook
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Thoguth
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Eating dog meat is sick

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/16/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 774 times Debate No: 98144
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Krookednook

Con

Eating dog meat is not sick. That is obvious. We eat pigs flesh on a daily basis. We tear off the limbs of turkeys and eat them as as a meal. We butcher deceased hens and steal their eggs, while other farmers stick their hand up cows butts and steal their babies. If you eat meat, you should accept that dog meat is a delicacy. Otherwise you are a complete hypocrite. Dogs might be a pet in your country, but in other places your mutt is a cherished meal. Get over it. Random people try to stop dog meat festivals and traditional festivities like 'heroes' and then run home and stuff their faces full of other animals flesh. This is just idiotic.
Thoguth

Pro

Hi Krookednook, thanks for offering this interesting topic for debate! It looks like a fun one. I appreciate your thoughts so far.

Meat that comes from different animals is not all the same. Even a child in a meat-eating household, given an option of turkey, chicken, pork, or beef, understands the differences enough to tell them apart as distinct types.

Even two of the same kind of animal, raised on different diets, will have notably different flavor. For example, grass-fed beef has a flavor from the grass, and different health characteristics than corn-fed or grain-fed. Out where some of my family lives, they have "wild hogs" that live in the woods and eat mostly acorns. Their meat tastes notably different from domesticated swine. It is affected by what they eat, and by where they live.

A key reason it's so natural for a human to feel uncomfortable at the prospect of eating dog, is not just because they are "pets"--I've kept pet birds and fish, and still eat plenty of chicken and tuna--but because they are so dang human-like in their affection. A dog knows who you are. He'll bark in anticipation of seeing you, will lay his head in your lap when you're down. If you are in a position where a wild animal is threatening you, many a loyal dog will step up and fight the beast, regardless of the odds, out of heartfelt dedication to their human. Dogs are not just human-like in their personality, they could even be said to be examples of the best of humans. They forgive; they defend; they show unconditional affection. Dogs are, in many ways, what many humans aspire to be. Like a higher version of ourselves. If it's wrong to eat a human, surely it should be grotesque to eat this mini-caricature of everything right about humanity.

And in contrast to that, after (or ... yuck, sometimes before) affectionately licking your face, a dog will eat incredibly disgusting things.

    • Roadkill? No problem!
    • Dead rat that the cat turned down? Why not!
    • Particularly odorous, maggot-infested garbage? Dog will turn your can over and make a mess of everything else, just to get into that (to it) "good stuff."
    • It's own poop? Another animal's poop, even? Dog considers it open season for snacking.
    • You call it vomit? Dog calls it "re-heated leftovers."

Diet affects taste of meat, and for all their pleasant social qualities, dogs have absolutely disgusting dietary habits. Between that and the personality that makes it an assault on your own humanity to wilfully harm it, you can't say that it's just like any other meat. There are good reasons to consider dog meat to be stomach-churning.

Thanks again for the discussion. Hope the day turns out well, and happy holidays.
Debate Round No. 1
Krookednook

Con

Well this will be interesting.

Well, your statement about dogs being human like is a common bias. Pigs have complex emotions too, and in intelligence tests they are proven to be more intellectual than the furry canines. Pigs actually make quite good pets, and I would gladly take a pig into my care. However, there is more than just pigs. Cows have been proven to have groups of best friends, and usually stick around with that group. Chickens are very social, and interact with other chickens like you would a person. Every animal has something to them that makes them special, and farmed animals are no exception. Dogs are not much different from pigs, and they share many similarities. Therefore, dogs are as human like as any other animal, be it pig, rat or chimpanzee.

Dogs are fed different diets in farms. Do you think a pig would hesitate in eating what dogs eat? The thing is, they are fed specific diets and I doubt much vomit-eating goes on in those farms. They are likely fed things that will enhance their taste, like cows eating corn or grass. Also, even if they DID eat the things they usually ate (vomit, poop etc.) it wouldn't change very much. Our farm animals probably eat it too.

And now I would like to discuss the cruelty in this business. Many websites state the horrid conditions these dogs live in, and for the most part it is true. But, if you looked into the slaughter in America, there is not much of a difference. A common argument is the transportation methods, and it is exactly the same as ours. We stuff living animals into small, confined spaces with no food or water and cram them onto trucks. Then we transport them over long distances to be slaughtered, where the animals are probably dying already. This is identical to our methods, so nothing here. Another common argument is the beatings these dogs endure. Well, I would agree it is disgusting. But I doubt you care about the things our livestock face every day. After being forcibly impregnated with artificial insemination, the mother cow has her calf dragged away, and the cow is forced back into the paddock/tiny cage. If it is a male, it is immediately killed, living for only a few hours. Piglets have their testicles ripped out after birth, and cannot even make contact with their dying mother. Chickens are forced to live in cramped, filthy conditions where they can't even walk. Then they get murdered after a tiny portion of their lifespan because they cannot lay any more eggs for the farmers to sell. I doubt this is better than what dogs go through.

I look to your argument
Thoguth

Pro

Hi, thanks again for your thoughts.

When I say that humans recognize dogs as having human-like traits, that isn't really a statement about dogs at all. It's a statement about humans. It's not so much a "common bias" as a widespread element of human culture. The difference between dogs and pigs that makes pigs edible and dogs taboo, is not anything inherent to pigs or to dogs, such as intelligence or emotions. Rather, it is something inherent to humans.

As humans, we do recognize emotions, socialization and feelings in animals--in fact, having the elite pattern-matching minds that we have, it's not unusual for us to anthropomorphize feelings that aren't actually there, right? And for those who hold the view that chickens really are somehow relatable to humans, it would probably be a more-ethical choice, maybe even the only to avoid eating chickens, too. But most of us do not, nor ever have had chickens as life-companions.

And that is really the most significant element of the distinction. When we as humans think of cows, we don't think of mothers who miss their babies, of curious gossips with their own personalities and stories and bovine emotions. Instead, generally speaking, we think of 800 lbs of hamburger in a leather bag.

For chickens or pigs, it's the same. We don't have familial sentiment toward chickens. They're social, and when the cluck a certain way or strut a certain way, we may find something we can relate to from a human perspective, but for the most part, they're profoundly different. They are family dinner, with feathers and a tiny chicken-brain that gets them into comical trouble.

Dogs, on the other hand, we think of differently, don't we? Who hasn't had a family pet that they taught tricks? Who hasn't had a happy companion barking eagerly and jumping around to greet them when they come home? Who hasn't had, or at least known a friend who had, a dear canine friend that they mourned for months or years after losing? When we show respect to the species of dogs by abstaining from eating them, we aren't just making a statement about hygiene or taste, we are making a statement about humanity. Humanity keeps dogs as companions in a way that no other animal could be so honored. (Some, like cats or horses, may come close--and for that reason, probably best not to eat cats or horses either). When we are sickened by the thought of eating dog, what we are really saying is that, as humans, we are sickened by the thought of eating a companion; if not an actual companion, at least something we recognize as a potential companion.

But in addition to that, let's think about the conditions in which dogs are raised for meat. You're familiar, aren't you, about some of the horrid conditions that meat animals are raised in in the US, aren't you? Feedlots and hog farms are not known for taking extra-good care of their animals, are they? On the contrary, they're known for crowded conditions and borderline lethal levels of everything sick and disgusting that an animal can tolerate without sacrificing meat-production efficiency. This is in the U.S.. Dogs that are raised for meat are raised overseas, typically in countries with more lax enforcement of food standards than found in U.S. agriculture. Dogs raised for meat are almost certainly living in their own feces (and likely eating plenty of it). When they're transported to market, they are often stacked on top of one another, crammed so tightly into a cage that they cannot all stand on the floor.

That is, the ones that are farmed. Dogs raised as companions are not exempt from being taken as meat, too. [1] Whether as a "retirement" for unwanted dogs, or even a sad and bitter end for stolen companions, the story is the same: in the rare places where it is acceptable to eat dog meat, pet dogs get eaten, too.

That brings us back to the best reason to avoid eating dogs: Dogs are companions to humans. That is their place in human culture. In the best case, eating dog is degrading to the moral part of us which would be sensitive to harming companions. But even more alarming, is the cold fact that when we eat dogs, we contribute to a market demand that leads to actual human-companion dogs being turned into meals, as well. In the repulsive worst case, eating a dog without being absolutely certain of its provenance, you might even be eating a beloved pet. Better to avoid the risk of that, as well as the moral degradation and discomfort of participating at all in such a gruesome activity.

1. Hyams, J. (January 15, 2015). "Former pets slaughtered for dog meat across Korea". The Korea Observer. http://www.koreaobserver.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Krookednook

Con

Well, most of your argument was about humanity regarding dogs as companions. But the reality is that, although your dog may be the best in the world, it is all an figment of human mentality. Dogs are only special because in ancient times humans hunted alongside wolves, and the domesticated canines were bred to have specific traits as humans evolved. So basically, man tames wolf, wolf is bred to be more efficient, and then that ferocious wolf is converted into your fluffy little poodle. But what if they decided to tame an animal such as a bull because of its bulky exterior and horns? We would probably be walking around with fluffy little cows with floppy ears and curly tails. And, who knows? Dogs might be in place of those cute fuzzy cattle. It all depends on which animals humans favored when we had only just developed sentience. Hell, we could be walking around with miniature giraffes if humanity decided. But they chose wolves because hey? Claws and teeth are good for hunting, right?

Also, with the stereotypes of chickens being bird-brained and cows being walking hamburgers, that has the exact same answer as my first rebuttal. It is all about humans morals. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is true. It is only because people rarely keep livestock as pets. But if we did, our viewpoint would be completely different. We would see cows, pigs and chickens as friends, not food, and then this argument would be about why eating cow meat is not sick.

Your last statement abut the conditions the dogs live in are lacking, as, like in my previous argument, it is hardly different to the conditions pigs and other livestock live in. I'm pretty sure every animal in a factory farm lives in their own filth. And although transport may be a bit more cramped, it isn't notably different enough to make an argument about.
Thoguth

Pro

Thanks again for the response, Krookednook.

I think I get what you're saying, about how dogs are only special because they've been human companions for tens of thousands of years, but I disagree as to why that should make things irrelevant. Maybe you are right, and if humans had chosen cows for their companions so many ages ago, I would be defending cow meat consumption. But we're living and arguing in the reality where dogs are human companions. We're living and arguing in a reality where humans do have that mentality. Just because it's possible that human mentality could be different, given different circumstances, is not a good reason to disregard what it is.

If I had married the girl that I dated in high school, I might never have met my wife in college or been married to her ... is that a good reason to act as if I don't have any feelings for my wife? It doesn't really make sense. Nor does it make sense to argue based on "IF something had been different N,000 years ago". What happened those years ago, is humans began a long and growing relationship with dogs as companions. Now we are here; they are companions, and eating them is eating companions. That should be enough right there.

As for your mention about chickens and cows, chickens are, in fact, literally bird-brained. They are avians, and being so heavily domesticated as farm chattel, they tend to be on the dumber side, even for birds. If we had chosen chickens as our companions tens-of-thousands-of-years ago, maybe they would have been selected for higher mental faculty, higher human empathy and communication skills. But they weren't. Likewise for cows--they have been bred for meat for generations upon generations.

Dogs, and especially pet-breed dogs, have been bred as pets and companions to humans. They may be specialized in some area or another -- as shepherds, hunters, or companions -- but they all have "being part of dog-kind" in common. In that sense, even the dogs bred for meat, are still dogs. Eating them is still eating something of a kind that humans recognize as companions, and as such is discomforting.

And because we may be talking about someone's pets, I think the treatment of the animals does make a bigger difference. Meat animals are something that we've already accepted as a society that it's reasonable to kill and eat. So it lives a little rough for a while before then. We do not want to subject any creature to unnecessary stress or terror, but if we've already accepted that we can kill it, peel its skin off and cook its muscles to go on our dinner plate, it doesn't seem quite as bad to have it experience a less-than-fulfilling life in anticipation of that death.

On the other hand, if someone was raising their own pet in a cage of its on feces, or stacking them so tightly they had to stand on one another in a crowded cage, we would see that as a worse offense than if they were doing the same to meat animals, wouldn't they? Because pets are human companions, and companions, who we as humans value for their personalities and sympathetic expressions, among other things, deserve better treatment to that.

And I'm not sure, but I don't think you responded to my previous mention of actual pet dogs (not just pet breeds) being eaten in areas where dog meat is eaten. Does it not concern you at all, that by eating dog you could be contributing to the early demise of someone's pet, either abandoned or dog-napped to be turned into a meal? Even if in the very broad generic sense one might have some concession to the eating of dog in principle, the very thought that you could be eating an actual companion, not just something that shared a class with a companion, should be enough to completely close the book on ever considering dog-meat as an ordinary thing that might be picked up in the market.

And if we were to accept that our present-day companions, these dogs, are edible, then what next? Where would such degraded views of that which we typically seek to protect, ultimately end? With cute little puppies and kittens? With humans? It is a perilous road to start down. Part of our choice to turn down dog meat is because of our present morals, but understanding the nature of moral decay in a society, some of our choice should also be seen as a protective element for the morals of future generations. Taking such a stand against puppy burgers is not just a sound moral choice for today, but for the very future of humanity.
Debate Round No. 3
Krookednook

Con

Well, firstly I did read your argument about how pet dogs are sometimes stolen, and yes, I do find that horrible. But, is eating a pet any worse than eating a different animal? Most might say yes because one has an owner that cares for it properly and loves it. But we are talking about the mainstream dog eating business here, and it is a very rare occasion that a pet is stolen for meat in official dog meat factories. Otherwise, they would not be able to sell as much, as the public would find it sick, and appalling. There would not be enough income for the factory owners. They would shut down.

Anyways, as I said, what makes dogs so special that we cannot eat them? Our morals are extremely biased because of our history. Compared to cows, dogs are sacred. But they are essentially the same thing. And an argument may be that the term sick is moral-related, and for the most part it is. But the definition of 'sick' is "having something unpleasant such as death or misfortune as its subject and dealing with it in an offensive way". Is eating meat sick? Most will say it is not. Are they dealing with it in an offensive way? Well, that is a matter of opinion. So, the term sick cannot apply well to something like eating dog meat.

Also, it is also cultural. For example, the majority of western folk think eating beef is fine. But in places like India, cows are sacred and majestic creatures. So, if you were born in a dog eating country, you would most likely believe eating dog meat is fine. It is all about perspective.
Thoguth

Pro

Is eating a pet any worse than eating a different animal? Yes! It is, as you said, sick and appalling. Former pets are mingled with farm-raised pets and former fighting animals. [1] This is worse than normal meat-animal farming. And the trend in countries like China and South Korea is ... that the old generation is still clinging to the traditions of eating dog, but more an more of the younger generation does find it appalling. [2]

You asked what makes it so appalling? The answer is right there... our morals. We see these creatures as pets, because they are pets. When a meat farm buys dogs on the market, it buys former pets. When one is mercifully closed, the dogs that would have been sold as meat, typically go on to be adopted as pets.

Sometimes our culture might look down on arbitrary, unreasonable things as taboo. But our reasons for not eating dog meat are very reasonable. They are companions and pets. Unlike the animals that we consider it normal to raise for food, we do not have a multi-millennia history of companionship that traces to the beginnings of human civilization.

And that's where the question of eating dog meat should be easy enough to settle:

Does companionship matter?

Should the history of companionship, the habits we have of treating dogs as companions, not just in Western countries but all over the world, make a difference when deciding what to eat? If not-eating-companions matters, the answer is simple: Dogs are companions. Let's not eat companions.

1. "Former Pets Slaughtered For Dog Meat Across Korea". The Korea Observer. N.p., 2016. Web. 26 Dec. 2016. (http://www.koreaobserver.com...)

2. Sang-Hun, Choe. "From Dog Farms In South Korea To New Lives As Pets Abroad". Nytimes.com. N.p., 2016. Web. 26 Dec. 2016. (http://www.nytimes.com...)
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: Matpat// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: -_- Dogs, really?

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD.
************************************************************************
Posted by DrKaboom44 1 year ago
DrKaboom44
Aren't the roles of chickens, pigs, cows, and turkey to be food animals since archaic times and dogs were supposed to be hunters with man?
No votes have been placed for this debate.