The Instigator
Stupidape
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
retrovision
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Excess cat populations should be eaten as dinner as opposed to euthanasia.

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: 10/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 390 times Debate No: 81494
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)

 

Stupidape

Pro

Excess cat populations should be eaten as dinner as opposed to euthanasia.
Euthanize "verb
1.
(transitive) to kill (a person or animal) painlessly, esp to relieve suffering from an incurable illness" dictionary.reference.com

Pro will argue that excess cat populations should become dinner instead of euthanasia.

Con will argue that excess cat populations should be euthanized as opposed to being eaten.

With all the hunger problems and environmental problems in the world it makes no sense to euthanize excess cat populations.

The problem of destructive fishing techniques could be mitigated by substituting some fish meat for feline meat. Including bottom trawling, cyanide fishing, dynamite fishing, and ghost fishing.

"These trawls - whose use is now widespread - are extremely damaging. In an experiment off Alaska, 55% of cold-water coral damaged by one pass of a trawl had not recovered a year later. Scars up to 4km long have been found in the reefs of the north-east Atlantic Ocean. And in heavily fished areas around coral seamounts off southern Australia, 90% of the surfaces where coral used to grow are now bare rock."wwf.panda.org

The Amazon rainforest could also be saved via consuming cat in lieu of cow. "The cattle sector in the Brazilian Amazon is the largest driver of deforestation in the world, responsible for one in every eight hectares destroyed globally. Efforts to halt global deforestation emissions must tackle this sector." greenpeace.org

When one in seven Americans struggle to get enough to eat it makes no sense for the valuable resource of cat meat to be wasted.

Why should we put the needs of a feline above those of the environment and of hungry American children?

"About 20 percent of American kids experience food insecurity" Elaine Waxman

"Some 795"million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active life. That's about one in nine people on earth." wfp.org

"" Number of cats and dogs entering U.S. shelters each year: 6 " 8 million" oxfordpets.com

"Around 2.7 million dogs and cats are euthanized every year in the United States, according to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA). This figure represents 1.4 million cats" ask.com

"Each year, approximately 2.7 million animals are euthanized (1.2 million dogs and 1.4 million cats)." ASPCA

I for one argue no, the needs of humans outweigh those of felines. Euthanasia of felines is a waste of resources in a hungry world and therefore immoral. Fluffy belongs on the dinner plate.

http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://wwf.panda.org...
http://www.greenpeace.org...
http://www.feedingamerica.org...
http://www.wfp.org...
http://www.oxfordpets.com...
http://www.ask.com...
https://www.aspca.org...
retrovision

Con

There is a reason humans don't eat carnivores. The disease transmission risk is a lot higher. A carnivore is much more likely to carry plague, rabies and trichinosis than herbivore. Even in China, their health officials are cautioning against eating dogs.

Then there would be taste. If you're in Oregon, you'd notice coastal ducks. They have been eating garbage and seafood. They are inedible because they taste so nasty. It's kind of a chicken/garbage/rotten seafood taste that will definitely make you stop eating. How much better could a cat taste when it's been eating rats. mice and garbage?

The size of a cat is also a problem. Most of them are only a pound of meat. It's kind of slim pickings for feeding your family of 4.

If cats were good to eat, there wouldn't be strays all over the place. People will just about starve before they eat a cat. It's not even popular in places where eating a dog is no big deal. Pigs are an exception we make to a cultural taboo against eating carnivores and only modern technology makes it reasonably safe. Eating bears is also a little on the dangerous side.

Your idea is more obnoxious than Marie Antoinette. "Let them eat cat!" "Let them eat cake" was bad enough.

I'm sure starving people in the world would eat cats if they possible could. That there are no takers tells me that your domestic house cat must be pretty close to inedible.
Debate Round No. 1
Stupidape

Pro

"There is a reason humans don't eat carnivores. The disease transmission risk is a lot higher. A carnivore is much more likely to carry plague, rabies and trichinosis than herbivore. Even in China, their health officials are cautioning against eating dogs." Con

You have no external sources, just your own words. Any links that carnivores carry more disease? We eat fish which many of are carnivorous. I know a local restaurants near me used to sell shark.

"Fresh Mako Shark
$9.59 per pound" alwaysfreshfish.com

"Then there would be taste. " Con

Taste is subjective. The palete changes. "Our tastes can and do change over time for a variety of reasons. Do you now dislike something you used to love, or vice-versa? " theguardian.com

"The size of a cat is also a problem. Most of them are only a pound of meat. It's kind of slim pickings for feeding your family of 4." Con

Some people eat plenty of small animals right here in the USA. Quail, chickens, rabbits, etc.

"If cats were good to eat, there wouldn't be strays all over the place. People will just about starve before they eat a cat." Con

There is cultural norms. Lets face it people are like sheep. We just follow the person next to us.

"Your idea is more obnoxious than Marie Antoinette. "Let them eat cat!" "Let them eat cake" was bad enough." Con

I like the comparison. :) I may be wrong but Marie Antoinette was a disruption of wealth issue. Perhaps the real issue here isn't enough resources, but that an elite few have way too much. For example the Forks Over Knives documentary claims that the world's cattle alone could feed 8.7 billion people.

Still feral cats do cause quite the problem as seen below. More importantly its fairly obvious our system of dealing with feral cats is not enough. Eating them would be one solution.

"The impacts of feral or free-ranging human companion or domestic animals poses a challenge for contemporary wildlife management. The domestic cat is the best known of these animals for its impacts to wildlife. Feral cats are an exotic species in the United States. With numbers in the millions, these animals are recognized as one of the most widespread and serious threats to the health and integrity of native wildlife populations and natural ecosystems." dfg.ca.gov

"According to a new study, the wild felines, which kill an estimated 75 million native animals per night, are responsible for the extinction of several species of mammals." huffingtonpost.com

"But this year in China, more than 2 million dogs and cats will be condemned to a hellish life of abuse, neglect, and cruelty before being slaughtered and stripped of their skin for the Chinese fur industry, which sells a lot of its products right here in the United States and Canada. " peta.org

So effectively you are saying the lives of these cats are more valuable that an entire species? We should just let the feral cats cause the extinction of species after species?

"for the fur-trimmed jackets, gloves, and other items that may find their way onto store shelves this fall." peta.org

We are already buying and wearing Fluffy as jackets and gloves. Why not take the extra step and eat fluffy?

http://www.alwaysfreshfish.com...
http://www.theguardian.com...
http://www.forksoverknives.com...
http://www.dfg.ca.gov...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
retrovision

Con

We aren't arguing about whether we should radically reduce the stray cat population. You don't need a link to know that feral domestic house cats are an invasive species or that eating carnivores carries extra health risks. These things are common knowledge.

Your definition of "should" seems to be that we coerce and/or encourage the worlds hungry into eating stray cats. I'd stop with saying go for it if you have to. Cook it well. Let's see if we can figure out how to get you a Philly steak and a beer.

There are a lot of feral cats in this neighborhood. You go first pal :)
Debate Round No. 2
Stupidape

Pro

Con agrees with me that feral cats are a problem. The implementation would be easy. Just like supermarkets all sorts of dead animal corpses that look appealing. I'm sure the ingenious food corporations could do the same with cats.

Imagine sending out people to round up stray cats. After a few steps in between, hot dogs appear in the supermarket. Except these hot dogs aren't 100% beef. How about cat burgers? Or Fluffy chops? The pawsibilities are endless. There is always soup. To the casual customer they wouldn't even know they were served feline.

We already eat:
0. Cow
1. Pig
2. Sheep
3. Chicken
4. Turkey
5. Duck
6. Trout
7. Salmon
8. Shark
9. Tuna
10. Cod
11. deer
12. rabbit
13. squirrel
14. Oyster
15. Lobster

If you look at the long list of rotting animal corpses we eat already, what would be one more?
retrovision

Con

The humane society calls our cat numbers at 74 million owned cats and 50 million strays. There are 75 million of us with food insecurity.

First. Your food aid comes out as two thirds of a dead cat for everybody in food distress. A little more than a cat if we completely destroyed all cats.

Second, there would be a certain fascination with what would happen to you if you went to any city in America and offered hungry people dead cat meat. Try it and make sure you let me know where to send flowers.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sarai.K82 1 year ago
Sarai.K82
It's an interesting argument. I thought about it, but I'd have to engage in a bit of sophistry to put up a decent counter-point. Ethically and morally, it's hard to argue against eating cat if you're not vegetarian.

http://www.cnn.com...
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
Looks like everyone agrees with me since nobody is challenging me. Either that or they think they can't win.
Posted by bbwbcb44 1 year ago
bbwbcb44
Besides the health laws that you would need to be changed , getting the American public to by into the idea of eating their pets for dinner makes this debate meaningless. You must have too much time on your hands to come up with debate.
Posted by Balacafa 1 year ago
Balacafa
This is absolutely stupid and if I wasn't already busy I would be debating you on this topic right now.
Posted by Stupidape 1 year ago
Stupidape
For the answer go to:

http://www.humanemyth.org...

Go through the slideshow and read the premature death part. You will understand then why slaughtering of animals for food and euthanasia are mutually exclusive.
Posted by Meropenem777 1 year ago
Meropenem777
Assuming your serious, how should animals who are going to be eaten be killed as opposed to euthanasia? Why can't there be euthanasia for animals before being eaten?
Posted by Meropenem777 1 year ago
Meropenem777
This kind of reminds me of "A Modest Proposal", written by Swift. He was definitely a master of sarcasm.
No votes have been placed for this debate.