Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Dogs: To eat or not to eat?

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

Assuming that the closer an animal is to being human, the more immoral it is to eat it - does anyone know what evolved first, the cow/goat/chicken/pig or the dog? If it is indeed fact that a commonly eaten animal in America is closer to humans than dogs, then the law is hypocritical and should be repealed immediately.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 1:27:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

Yes, but remember that I don't support the common ideas of "rights" as objective in any sense.


Assuming that the closer an animal is to being human, the more immoral it is to eat it - does anyone know what evolved first, the cow/goat/chicken/pig or the dog? If it is indeed fact that a commonly eaten animal in America is closer to humans than dogs, then the law is hypocritical and should be repealed immediately.

I don't make that assumption. As a society, we choose what to value and what to protect (inb4 Rags says there is no such thing as society). We choose to value and protect property rights, gun rights, free speech rights (for the most part to all of those), and we choose to value dogs and cats as non-food furry friends.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 1:31:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

Assuming that the closer an animal is to being human, the more immoral it is to eat it - does anyone know what evolved first, the cow/goat/chicken/pig or the dog? If it is indeed fact that a commonly eaten animal in America is closer to humans than dogs, then the law is hypocritical and should be repealed immediately.

The closest, apart from the apes of course, animals to humans are pigs and rats. Pig anatomy is pretty similar to ours and of course, medical tests are perfomed on rats for a purpose.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 1:51:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Nope, laws forbidding the consumption of dogs while allowing consumption of pigs are irrational. We live in a democracy, however, and any politician who suggested we legalise dog eating isn't going to be elected.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 1:55:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 1:51:47 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Nope, laws forbidding the consumption of dogs while allowing consumption of pigs are irrational. We live in a democracy, however, and any politician who suggested we legalise dog eating isn't going to be elected.

How is it irrational?

rational - "Based on or in accordance with reason or logic." If I value a dog more than a pig, than it is completely rational. Since values are subjective, it can be rational to different people.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 1:56:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 1:51:47 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Nope, laws forbidding the consumption of dogs while allowing consumption of pigs are irrational. We live in a democracy, however, and any politician who suggested we legalise dog eating isn't going to be elected.

Pretty much this. Pigs are smarter and more rational than dogs, yet we kill and eat them and it's legally permissible. Dog killing/consumption would be punished by law most likely; after all dog fighting is illegal despite the way we torture and kill the animals we eat. We're socially conditioned to think of eating dogs as gross or somehow immoral.
President of DDO
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 1:57:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

Assuming that the closer an animal is to being human, the more immoral it is to eat it - does anyone know what evolved first, the cow/goat/chicken/pig or the dog? If it is indeed fact that a commonly eaten animal in America is closer to humans than dogs, then the law is hypocritical and should be repealed immediately.

I believe that dogs co-evolved with humans first followed by herd animals like cattle and goats.

Other than the West's affinity towards dogs, there is no good reason why we can eat a cow or a chicken but not a dog. In many other countries, they can.

I have no problem with eating dog. HOWEVER, I have a huge problem with how "dog" is prepared in most asian countries (I won't get into it, suffice to say dogs filled with adrenaline is considered a delicacy).
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 2:00:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 1:55:57 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:51:47 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Nope, laws forbidding the consumption of dogs while allowing consumption of pigs are irrational. We live in a democracy, however, and any politician who suggested we legalise dog eating isn't going to be elected.

How is it irrational?

rational - "Based on or in accordance with reason or logic." If I value a dog more than a pig, than it is completely rational. Since values are subjective, it can be rational to different people.

The problem here is, who are you to impose your values on the values of others? Something like eating dogs does not harm, hurt or steal from anyone or affect anyone in anyway. If we are to live in a truly free environment, why is it not okay to eat dogs?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 2:00:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 1:57:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

Assuming that the closer an animal is to being human, the more immoral it is to eat it - does anyone know what evolved first, the cow/goat/chicken/pig or the dog? If it is indeed fact that a commonly eaten animal in America is closer to humans than dogs, then the law is hypocritical and should be repealed immediately.

I believe that dogs co-evolved with humans first followed by herd animals like cattle and goats.

Other than the West's affinity towards dogs, there is no good reason why we can eat a cow or a chicken but not a dog. In many other countries, they can.

I have no problem with eating dog. HOWEVER, I have a huge problem with how "dog" is prepared in most asian countries (I won't get into it, suffice to say dogs filled with adrenaline is considered a delicacy).

Go to a petco or some dog treat place and buy your dog a "bully stick" snack.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 2:03:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 2:00:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:57:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

Assuming that the closer an animal is to being human, the more immoral it is to eat it - does anyone know what evolved first, the cow/goat/chicken/pig or the dog? If it is indeed fact that a commonly eaten animal in America is closer to humans than dogs, then the law is hypocritical and should be repealed immediately.

I believe that dogs co-evolved with humans first followed by herd animals like cattle and goats.

Other than the West's affinity towards dogs, there is no good reason why we can eat a cow or a chicken but not a dog. In many other countries, they can.

I have no problem with eating dog. HOWEVER, I have a huge problem with how "dog" is prepared in most asian countries (I won't get into it, suffice to say dogs filled with adrenaline is considered a delicacy).

Go to a petco or some dog treat place and buy your dog a "bully stick" snack.

I grew up in a house with five dogs, if that is your implication. I love dogs, but I'm sure some people love pigs and cows. That doesn't stop us from killing and eating them.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 2:10:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 2:00:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:55:57 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:51:47 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Nope, laws forbidding the consumption of dogs while allowing consumption of pigs are irrational. We live in a democracy, however, and any politician who suggested we legalise dog eating isn't going to be elected.

How is it irrational?

rational - "Based on or in accordance with reason or logic." If I value a dog more than a pig, than it is completely rational. Since values are subjective, it can be rational to different people.


The problem here is, who are you to impose your values on the values of others? Something like eating dogs does not harm, hurt or steal from anyone or affect anyone in anyway. If we are to live in a truly free environment, why is it not okay to eat dogs?

If we live in a truely free environment, it should be okay to kill other humans. Why should humans have any more rights than anyone else?

Though killing and eating dogs does harm others, in the sence that people value emotional or psychological harm (oddly completely ignored by libertarians). Why should one form of harm be considered but not another?

And how does one weigh harm (of any kind)? If I flick you in the ear, that is obviously "harming" you, but no real damage has been done (apart from the death of a few skin cells in the demis), but what if you "ham it up" and act like I practically ripped your ear off? And you were going through intensive, horrible, excruciating pain? The amount of pain one feels is subjective. You flick me in the ear, and I flick you in the ear, we may feel different degrees of pain. So there has to be some kind of univified standard of what is the "proper" amount of harm done in that case.

The same applies to financial damage of things of sentemental value. A thief steals a car that had a KBB value of $7,800, but since it was a car that my father and I rebuilt by hand when I was leaning to drive before he died of lung cancer, it obviously has more value to me (and even then, the KBB is an average of society's compiled subjective values).

But we choose to ignore mental harm, emotional harm, and various others simply because they are harder to measure and harder to develop a social norm for them.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 2:13:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 2:03:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:00:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:57:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

Assuming that the closer an animal is to being human, the more immoral it is to eat it - does anyone know what evolved first, the cow/goat/chicken/pig or the dog? If it is indeed fact that a commonly eaten animal in America is closer to humans than dogs, then the law is hypocritical and should be repealed immediately.

I believe that dogs co-evolved with humans first followed by herd animals like cattle and goats.

Other than the West's affinity towards dogs, there is no good reason why we can eat a cow or a chicken but not a dog. In many other countries, they can.

I have no problem with eating dog. HOWEVER, I have a huge problem with how "dog" is prepared in most asian countries (I won't get into it, suffice to say dogs filled with adrenaline is considered a delicacy).

Go to a petco or some dog treat place and buy your dog a "bully stick" snack.

I grew up in a house with five dogs, if that is your implication. I love dogs, but I'm sure some people love pigs and cows. That doesn't stop us from killing and eating them.

Yes, some people enjoy eating other people, that doesn't mean it is allowed. It is allow about socially accepted values. When society accepts pigs and cows as pets, society's laws will change.

The difference is that you look at it on an individual level, I don't.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 2:21:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 2:10:56 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:00:27 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:55:57 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:51:47 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Nope, laws forbidding the consumption of dogs while allowing consumption of pigs are irrational. We live in a democracy, however, and any politician who suggested we legalise dog eating isn't going to be elected.

How is it irrational?

rational - "Based on or in accordance with reason or logic." If I value a dog more than a pig, than it is completely rational. Since values are subjective, it can be rational to different people.


The problem here is, who are you to impose your values on the values of others? Something like eating dogs does not harm, hurt or steal from anyone or affect anyone in anyway. If we are to live in a truly free environment, why is it not okay to eat dogs?

If we live in a truely free environment, it should be okay to kill other humans. Why should humans have any more rights than anyone else?

Though killing and eating dogs does harm others, in the sence that people value emotional or psychological harm (oddly completely ignored by libertarians). Why should one form of harm be considered but not another?

And how does one weigh harm (of any kind)? If I flick you in the ear, that is obviously "harming" you, but no real damage has been done (apart from the death of a few skin cells in the demis), but what if you "ham it up" and act like I practically ripped your ear off? And you were going through intensive, horrible, excruciating pain? The amount of pain one feels is subjective. You flick me in the ear, and I flick you in the ear, we may feel different degrees of pain. So there has to be some kind of univified standard of what is the "proper" amount of harm done in that case.

The same applies to financial damage of things of sentemental value. A thief steals a car that had a KBB value of $7,800, but since it was a car that my father and I rebuilt by hand when I was leaning to drive before he died of lung cancer, it obviously has more value to me (and even then, the KBB is an average of society's compiled subjective values).

But we choose to ignore mental harm, emotional harm, and various others simply because they are harder to measure and harder to develop a social norm for them.

I was confused about this topic before, but I think I agree with you.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 2:21:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 2:13:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:03:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:00:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:57:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

Assuming that the closer an animal is to being human, the more immoral it is to eat it - does anyone know what evolved first, the cow/goat/chicken/pig or the dog? If it is indeed fact that a commonly eaten animal in America is closer to humans than dogs, then the law is hypocritical and should be repealed immediately.

I believe that dogs co-evolved with humans first followed by herd animals like cattle and goats.

Other than the West's affinity towards dogs, there is no good reason why we can eat a cow or a chicken but not a dog. In many other countries, they can.

I have no problem with eating dog. HOWEVER, I have a huge problem with how "dog" is prepared in most asian countries (I won't get into it, suffice to say dogs filled with adrenaline is considered a delicacy).

Go to a petco or some dog treat place and buy your dog a "bully stick" snack.

I grew up in a house with five dogs, if that is your implication. I love dogs, but I'm sure some people love pigs and cows. That doesn't stop us from killing and eating them.

Yes, some people enjoy eating other people, that doesn't mean it is allowed. It is allow about socially accepted values. When society accepts pigs and cows as pets, society's laws will change.

The difference is that you look at it on an individual level, I don't.

It reminds me of one of Douglas Adams' inventions. In that world, they apparently have cows that "want" to be eaten. This takes care of any "discomfort" one may have about eating animals.

Although, when a cow comes and asks you whether it can interest you in some prime rib, you tend to not want to eat such a thing!
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 2:23:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 2:13:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:03:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:00:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:57:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

Assuming that the closer an animal is to being human, the more immoral it is to eat it - does anyone know what evolved first, the cow/goat/chicken/pig or the dog? If it is indeed fact that a commonly eaten animal in America is closer to humans than dogs, then the law is hypocritical and should be repealed immediately.

I believe that dogs co-evolved with humans first followed by herd animals like cattle and goats.

Other than the West's affinity towards dogs, there is no good reason why we can eat a cow or a chicken but not a dog. In many other countries, they can.

I have no problem with eating dog. HOWEVER, I have a huge problem with how "dog" is prepared in most asian countries (I won't get into it, suffice to say dogs filled with adrenaline is considered a delicacy).

Go to a petco or some dog treat place and buy your dog a "bully stick" snack.

I grew up in a house with five dogs, if that is your implication. I love dogs, but I'm sure some people love pigs and cows. That doesn't stop us from killing and eating them.

Yes, some people enjoy eating other people, that doesn't mean it is allowed. It is allow about socially accepted values. When society accepts pigs and cows as pets, society's laws will change.

The difference is that you look at it on an individual level, I don't.

No, I look on a cultural level. Different societies have had different histories depending on their geography and relation to domesticated and non-domesticated animals. I can't see what right a meat eater in America has to tell a meat eater in vietnam that he can eat pigs but not dogs. You could say that more intelligent animals deserve more rights, but then only someone who does not eat pigs could make the claim without hypocracy.

If your stance is that each particular societies whims are the only thing that stops us from eating dog but allows us to eat pigs, then I don't see what your point is. Of course different societies have different food norms.

The only "logic" is that we co-evolved with dogs as hunting partners while pigs, cattle, etc were domesticated with sole intent of being eaten.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 2:29:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 2:23:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:13:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:03:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:00:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:57:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

Assuming that the closer an animal is to being human, the more immoral it is to eat it - does anyone know what evolved first, the cow/goat/chicken/pig or the dog? If it is indeed fact that a commonly eaten animal in America is closer to humans than dogs, then the law is hypocritical and should be repealed immediately.

I believe that dogs co-evolved with humans first followed by herd animals like cattle and goats.

Other than the West's affinity towards dogs, there is no good reason why we can eat a cow or a chicken but not a dog. In many other countries, they can.

I have no problem with eating dog. HOWEVER, I have a huge problem with how "dog" is prepared in most asian countries (I won't get into it, suffice to say dogs filled with adrenaline is considered a delicacy).

Go to a petco or some dog treat place and buy your dog a "bully stick" snack.

I grew up in a house with five dogs, if that is your implication. I love dogs, but I'm sure some people love pigs and cows. That doesn't stop us from killing and eating them.

Yes, some people enjoy eating other people, that doesn't mean it is allowed. It is allow about socially accepted values. When society accepts pigs and cows as pets, society's laws will change.

The difference is that you look at it on an individual level, I don't.

No, I look on a cultural level. Different societies have had different histories depending on their geography and relation to domesticated and non-domesticated animals. I can't see what right a meat eater in America has to tell a meat eater in vietnam that he can eat pigs but not dogs. You could say that more intelligent animals deserve more rights, but then only someone who does not eat pigs could make the claim without hypocracy.

"Pigs sleep and root in sh*t. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces."

Either Jules here is not intelligent or...

If your stance is that each particular societies whims are the only thing that stops us from eating dog but allows us to eat pigs, then I don't see what your point is. Of course different societies have different food norms.

The only "logic" is that we co-evolved with dogs as hunting partners while pigs, cattle, etc were domesticated with sole intent of being eaten.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 2:32:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 1:56:44 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:51:47 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Nope, laws forbidding the consumption of dogs while allowing consumption of pigs are irrational. We live in a democracy, however, and any politician who suggested we legalise dog eating isn't going to be elected.

Pretty much this. Pigs are smarter and more rational than dogs, yet we kill and eat them and it's legally permissible. Dog killing/consumption would be punished by law most likely; after all dog fighting is illegal despite the way we torture and kill the animals we eat. We're socially conditioned to think of eating dogs as gross or somehow immoral.

Who said Rationality ought be what we value above all other things in a creature?

People happen to get along rather well with dogs.. Intuitively/emotionally connect...

People value this... people don't want you killing dogs, but don't care so much about pigs..

Now.. I don't know if pigs are like dogs in this manner (though I suspect not quite so much so) but I don't like it when people kill/torture dogs b/c they seem to have similar emotions as Do I.. and I empathize.

B/C I naturally empathize with them.. I'd rather people not be d*cks to them, b/c it'll make me feel bad.

so I'd act to prevent people from doing such things.. "Acting" including passing laws if I was so able.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 2:36:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 2:32:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:56:44 PM, Danielle wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:51:47 PM, Kinesis wrote:
Nope, laws forbidding the consumption of dogs while allowing consumption of pigs are irrational. We live in a democracy, however, and any politician who suggested we legalise dog eating isn't going to be elected.

Pretty much this. Pigs are smarter and more rational than dogs, yet we kill and eat them and it's legally permissible. Dog killing/consumption would be punished by law most likely; after all dog fighting is illegal despite the way we torture and kill the animals we eat. We're socially conditioned to think of eating dogs as gross or somehow immoral.

Who said Rationality ought be what we value above all other things in a creature?

People happen to get along rather well with dogs.. Intuitively/emotionally connect...

People value this... people don't want you killing dogs, but don't care so much about pigs..

Now.. I don't know if pigs are like dogs in this manner (though I suspect not quite so much so) but I don't like it when people kill/torture dogs b/c they seem to have similar emotions as Do I.. and I empathize.

B/C I naturally empathize with them.. I'd rather people not be d*cks to them, b/c it'll make me feel bad.

so I'd act to prevent people from doing such things.. "Acting" including passing laws if I was so able.

Now, there are a few people who may have the same kind of connection with pigs that most people do with dogs. Does this mean that our laws are created solely on what the majority of a society feels? Something about that does not seem right to me..
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 2:39:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 2:36:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Now, there are a few people who may have the same kind of connection with pigs that most people do with dogs. Does this mean that our laws are created solely on what the majority of a society feels? Something about that does not seem right to me..

Well.. Firstly I doubt that Pigs are as similar to people as are Dogs in that department...

but secondly.. Ideally I would have the law reflect My Cares... But I find settling for them reflecting Majority Cares to be an ok, more realistic, alternative.. For I find that I am generally similar to most people...
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 2:46:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 2:39:43 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:36:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Now, there are a few people who may have the same kind of connection with pigs that most people do with dogs. Does this mean that our laws are created solely on what the majority of a society feels? Something about that does not seem right to me..

Well.. Firstly I doubt that Pigs are as similar to people as are Dogs in that department...

but secondly.. Ideally I would have the law reflect My Cares... But I find settling for them reflecting Majority Cares to be an ok, more realistic, alternative.. For I find that I am generally similar to most people...

we end our pledge with ".....with liberty and justice for all." NOT ".....with liberty and justice for most."
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 2:52:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 2:46:58 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:39:43 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:36:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
Now, there are a few people who may have the same kind of connection with pigs that most people do with dogs. Does this mean that our laws are created solely on what the majority of a society feels? Something about that does not seem right to me..

Well.. Firstly I doubt that Pigs are as similar to people as are Dogs in that department...

but secondly.. Ideally I would have the law reflect My Cares... But I find settling for them reflecting Majority Cares to be an ok, more realistic, alternative.. For I find that I am generally similar to most people...

we end our pledge with ".....with liberty and justice for all." NOT ".....with liberty and justice for most."

I care about what I care about.

I don't care in the same way ALL people care.
I care for what I care for.

I'd MOST like to see what I care for reflected in law... For it's what I care for.

I explained that a More Likely, somewhat Amenable, alternative would be to have what Most People care for reflected in law... NOT b/c "most people's" opinions are somehow important to me.. but b/c I find that "most people's cares" are rather similar to my own.. and it's easier to get the law to reflect "most people's cares" than it is to get it to reflect "My Cares"
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 2:53:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 2:29:01 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:23:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:13:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:03:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:00:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:57:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

Assuming that the closer an animal is to being human, the more immoral it is to eat it - does anyone know what evolved first, the cow/goat/chicken/pig or the dog? If it is indeed fact that a commonly eaten animal in America is closer to humans than dogs, then the law is hypocritical and should be repealed immediately.

I believe that dogs co-evolved with humans first followed by herd animals like cattle and goats.

Other than the West's affinity towards dogs, there is no good reason why we can eat a cow or a chicken but not a dog. In many other countries, they can.

I have no problem with eating dog. HOWEVER, I have a huge problem with how "dog" is prepared in most asian countries (I won't get into it, suffice to say dogs filled with adrenaline is considered a delicacy).

Go to a petco or some dog treat place and buy your dog a "bully stick" snack.

I grew up in a house with five dogs, if that is your implication. I love dogs, but I'm sure some people love pigs and cows. That doesn't stop us from killing and eating them.

Yes, some people enjoy eating other people, that doesn't mean it is allowed. It is allow about socially accepted values. When society accepts pigs and cows as pets, society's laws will change.

The difference is that you look at it on an individual level, I don't.

No, I look on a cultural level. Different societies have had different histories depending on their geography and relation to domesticated and non-domesticated animals. I can't see what right a meat eater in America has to tell a meat eater in vietnam that he can eat pigs but not dogs. You could say that more intelligent animals deserve more rights, but then only someone who does not eat pigs could make the claim without hypocracy.

"Pigs sleep and root in sh*t. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces."

Either Jules here is not intelligent or...

http://www.nytimes.com...

Don't take your biology advice from biblically inspired hitmen.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 3:10:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 2:53:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:29:01 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:23:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:13:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:03:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:00:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:57:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

Assuming that the closer an animal is to being human, the more immoral it is to eat it - does anyone know what evolved first, the cow/goat/chicken/pig or the dog? If it is indeed fact that a commonly eaten animal in America is closer to humans than dogs, then the law is hypocritical and should be repealed immediately.

I believe that dogs co-evolved with humans first followed by herd animals like cattle and goats.

Other than the West's affinity towards dogs, there is no good reason why we can eat a cow or a chicken but not a dog. In many other countries, they can.

I have no problem with eating dog. HOWEVER, I have a huge problem with how "dog" is prepared in most asian countries (I won't get into it, suffice to say dogs filled with adrenaline is considered a delicacy).

Go to a petco or some dog treat place and buy your dog a "bully stick" snack.

I grew up in a house with five dogs, if that is your implication. I love dogs, but I'm sure some people love pigs and cows. That doesn't stop us from killing and eating them.

Yes, some people enjoy eating other people, that doesn't mean it is allowed. It is allow about socially accepted values. When society accepts pigs and cows as pets, society's laws will change.

The difference is that you look at it on an individual level, I don't.

No, I look on a cultural level. Different societies have had different histories depending on their geography and relation to domesticated and non-domesticated animals. I can't see what right a meat eater in America has to tell a meat eater in vietnam that he can eat pigs but not dogs. You could say that more intelligent animals deserve more rights, but then only someone who does not eat pigs could make the claim without hypocracy.

"Pigs sleep and root in sh*t. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces."

Either Jules here is not intelligent or...

http://www.nytimes.com...

Don't take your biology advice from biblically inspired hitmen.

The article doesn't address the main point!
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 3:18:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 3:10:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:53:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:29:01 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:23:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:13:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:03:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:00:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:57:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

Assuming that the closer an animal is to being human, the more immoral it is to eat it - does anyone know what evolved first, the cow/goat/chicken/pig or the dog? If it is indeed fact that a commonly eaten animal in America is closer to humans than dogs, then the law is hypocritical and should be repealed immediately.

I believe that dogs co-evolved with humans first followed by herd animals like cattle and goats.

Other than the West's affinity towards dogs, there is no good reason why we can eat a cow or a chicken but not a dog. In many other countries, they can.

I have no problem with eating dog. HOWEVER, I have a huge problem with how "dog" is prepared in most asian countries (I won't get into it, suffice to say dogs filled with adrenaline is considered a delicacy).

Go to a petco or some dog treat place and buy your dog a "bully stick" snack.

I grew up in a house with five dogs, if that is your implication. I love dogs, but I'm sure some people love pigs and cows. That doesn't stop us from killing and eating them.

Yes, some people enjoy eating other people, that doesn't mean it is allowed. It is allow about socially accepted values. When society accepts pigs and cows as pets, society's laws will change.

The difference is that you look at it on an individual level, I don't.

No, I look on a cultural level. Different societies have had different histories depending on their geography and relation to domesticated and non-domesticated animals. I can't see what right a meat eater in America has to tell a meat eater in vietnam that he can eat pigs but not dogs. You could say that more intelligent animals deserve more rights, but then only someone who does not eat pigs could make the claim without hypocracy.

"Pigs sleep and root in sh*t. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces."

Either Jules here is not intelligent or...

http://www.nytimes.com...

Don't take your biology advice from biblically inspired hitmen.

The article doesn't address the main point!

Which is what? Pigs are filthy?

If you don't accept pigs as smarter than dogs, fine. I only gave that conditional as an example of how you could create a rationale for which animals to eat or not eat.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 3:21:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 3:18:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 3:10:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:53:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:29:01 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:23:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:13:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:03:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:00:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:57:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

Assuming that the closer an animal is to being human, the more immoral it is to eat it - does anyone know what evolved first, the cow/goat/chicken/pig or the dog? If it is indeed fact that a commonly eaten animal in America is closer to humans than dogs, then the law is hypocritical and should be repealed immediately.

I believe that dogs co-evolved with humans first followed by herd animals like cattle and goats.

Other than the West's affinity towards dogs, there is no good reason why we can eat a cow or a chicken but not a dog. In many other countries, they can.

I have no problem with eating dog. HOWEVER, I have a huge problem with how "dog" is prepared in most asian countries (I won't get into it, suffice to say dogs filled with adrenaline is considered a delicacy).

Go to a petco or some dog treat place and buy your dog a "bully stick" snack.

I grew up in a house with five dogs, if that is your implication. I love dogs, but I'm sure some people love pigs and cows. That doesn't stop us from killing and eating them.

Yes, some people enjoy eating other people, that doesn't mean it is allowed. It is allow about socially accepted values. When society accepts pigs and cows as pets, society's laws will change.

The difference is that you look at it on an individual level, I don't.

No, I look on a cultural level. Different societies have had different histories depending on their geography and relation to domesticated and non-domesticated animals. I can't see what right a meat eater in America has to tell a meat eater in vietnam that he can eat pigs but not dogs. You could say that more intelligent animals deserve more rights, but then only someone who does not eat pigs could make the claim without hypocracy.

"Pigs sleep and root in sh*t. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces."

Either Jules here is not intelligent or...

http://www.nytimes.com...

Don't take your biology advice from biblically inspired hitmen.

The article doesn't address the main point!

Which is what? Pigs are filthy?

If you don't accept pigs as smarter than dogs, fine. I only gave that conditional as an example of how you could create a rationale for which animals to eat or not eat.

I personally couldn't care less if an animal is "intelligent" or smart or not. Every animal is smart, in some sense, to not go extinct. I'd imagine that a majority of human beings, if left in the wild, would die without reproducing, so that puts that in context.

It's somehow difficult to get past this "filthy" tag. Do you contend that pigs are not filthy animals?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 3:22:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

I isn't logical to have laws that permit eating some animals but not others. Above all, logic demands consistency. If something is not consistent it is incoherent, and thus illogical.

Some people would argue that we should permit the eating of all animal in order to overcome this inconsistency (humans are animals but people normally exclude humans when making this argument). It would be just as easy to argue the opposite: we should ban the eating of all animals so our laws are consistent.

I take the latter view. Not only would it make our laws consistent, this approach would also be consistent with our basic ethical beliefs about unnecessary suffering.
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 3:24:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 3:22:00 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

I isn't logical to have laws that permit eating some animals but not others. Above all, logic demands consistency. If something is not consistent it is incoherent, and thus illogical.

Some people would argue that we should permit the eating of all animal in order to overcome this inconsistency (humans are animals but people normally exclude humans when making this argument). It would be just as easy to argue the opposite: we should ban the eating of all animals so our laws are consistent.

I take the latter view. Not only would it make our laws consistent, this approach would also be consistent with our basic ethical beliefs about unnecessary suffering.

Yeah, only there is not enough vegetable food to sustain the human population. In order to root out unnecessary suffering, we'd then invite suffering necessarily into our lives.

One doesn't kill oneself to prove the world that one is logically consistent. One usually changes logic to suit the new situation.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 3:34:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 3:21:32 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/30/2011 3:18:03 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 3:10:49 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:53:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:29:01 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:23:34 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:13:43 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:03:16 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 2:00:58 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:57:47 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

Assuming that the closer an animal is to being human, the more immoral it is to eat it - does anyone know what evolved first, the cow/goat/chicken/pig or the dog? If it is indeed fact that a commonly eaten animal in America is closer to humans than dogs, then the law is hypocritical and should be repealed immediately.

I believe that dogs co-evolved with humans first followed by herd animals like cattle and goats.

Other than the West's affinity towards dogs, there is no good reason why we can eat a cow or a chicken but not a dog. In many other countries, they can.

I have no problem with eating dog. HOWEVER, I have a huge problem with how "dog" is prepared in most asian countries (I won't get into it, suffice to say dogs filled with adrenaline is considered a delicacy).

Go to a petco or some dog treat place and buy your dog a "bully stick" snack.

I grew up in a house with five dogs, if that is your implication. I love dogs, but I'm sure some people love pigs and cows. That doesn't stop us from killing and eating them.

Yes, some people enjoy eating other people, that doesn't mean it is allowed. It is allow about socially accepted values. When society accepts pigs and cows as pets, society's laws will change.

The difference is that you look at it on an individual level, I don't.

No, I look on a cultural level. Different societies have had different histories depending on their geography and relation to domesticated and non-domesticated animals. I can't see what right a meat eater in America has to tell a meat eater in vietnam that he can eat pigs but not dogs. You could say that more intelligent animals deserve more rights, but then only someone who does not eat pigs could make the claim without hypocracy.

"Pigs sleep and root in sh*t. That's a filthy animal. I ain't eat nothin' that ain't got sense enough to disregard its own feces."

Either Jules here is not intelligent or...

http://www.nytimes.com...

Don't take your biology advice from biblically inspired hitmen.

The article doesn't address the main point!

Which is what? Pigs are filthy?

If you don't accept pigs as smarter than dogs, fine. I only gave that conditional as an example of how you could create a rationale for which animals to eat or not eat.

I personally couldn't care less if an animal is "intelligent" or smart or not. Every animal is smart, in some sense, to not go extinct. I'd imagine that a majority of human beings, if left in the wild, would die without reproducing, so that puts that in context.

It's somehow difficult to get past this "filthy" tag. Do you contend that pigs are not filthy animals?

I could not care less whether or not an animal rolls around in mud and sh!t as long as they are skinned, cleaned, and cooked. I'll take that anyday over a "clean" animal that is filled with bacteria and worms.

That said, my dad says pigs are the best pets you can have (he grew up on a dude ranch/farm).
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 3:38:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 3:34:33 PM, Wnope wrote:
It's somehow difficult to get past this "filthy" tag. Do you contend that pigs are not filthy animals?

I could not care less whether or not an animal rolls around in mud and sh!t as long as they are skinned, cleaned, and cooked. I'll take that anyday over a "clean" animal that is filled with bacteria and worms.

That said, my dad says pigs are the best pets you can have (he grew up on a dude ranch/farm).

Hmm. I was not talking about that filth. I was talking in the sense that they eat their own excreta. Is this an urban legend? Do pigs really do this?

I'm also against pets of any kind :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
vbaculum
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/30/2011 3:58:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/30/2011 3:24:20 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 8/30/2011 3:22:00 PM, vbaculum wrote:
At 8/30/2011 1:24:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
I personally find the idea wrong on many levels, but is our protection of dogs logical and is okay to have laws forbidding the consumption of them?

I isn't logical to have laws that permit eating some animals but not others. Above all, logic demands consistency. If something is not consistent it is incoherent, and thus illogical.

Some people would argue that we should permit the eating of all animal in order to overcome this inconsistency (humans are animals but people normally exclude humans when making this argument). It would be just as easy to argue the opposite: we should ban the eating of all animals so our laws are consistent.

I take the latter view. Not only would it make our laws consistent, this approach would also be consistent with our basic ethical beliefs about unnecessary suffering.

Yeah, only there is not enough vegetable food to sustain the human population. In order to root out unnecessary suffering, we'd then invite suffering necessarily into our lives.

If it were true that there isn't enough plant-based food to sustain the human population then there would be a lot of statistical and scientific evidence to support the claim. Do you have any dependable source to back that up. If you don't, then why did you say it?
"If you claim to value nonviolence and you consume animal products, you need to rethink your position on nonviolence." - Gary Francione

THE WORLD IS VEGAN! If you want it