Killing dogs for meat banned in South Korea?

[Smok3r]

For the record, you could fuck a dog, legally, in texas until 2017

 

[Zazen]

Yes, its hypocritical to eat pig, and not dog, based entirely on the intelligence level of the animals. But dogs possess the capacity to love and bond with humans....when pigs get to that emotional level, I will put down my porkchop and plate of delicious sisig.

But you're just trolling with all this, right?

Why do you create a hierarchy based on your view of how much an animal serves a human being? Do you eat cat? Because they certainly don't serve us in the way that dogs do.

 

[ObsoleteSoul]

You just told vegans that they shouldn’t be for banning animals for human consumption, though.

Did I? Hmmm. Well you can be for or against whatever you want, just know it is hypocritical to do so sometimes.

 

[Zazen]

You just told vegans that they shouldn’t be for banning animals for human consumption, though.

I don't know any vegan that is trying to ban meat.

 

[Smok3r]

Did I? Hmmm. Well you can be for or against whatever you want, just know it is hypocritical to do so sometimes.

 

[Zazen]

I don't think he said that either. That was another poster.

 

[ObsoleteSoul]

Nope. It's a pretty consistent opinion. If you eat meat, then you should be for eating meat. To pick and choose is hypocritical. They are all living creatures with a benefit to the world, and humans, in some way.

 

[Zazen]

Nope. It's a pretty consistent opinion. If you eat meat, then you should be for eating meat. To pick and choose is hypocritical. They are all living creatures with a benefit to the world, and humans, in some way.

He seems to be mixing you up with Hog-train. I would just let it go, he is confused.

 

[Madmick]

We have whole organizations protesting them and even rescuing dogs from their farms. There were a lot of protests during the Pyongyang Olympics.

No, we didn't. "We" is the USA. "They" is South Korea.

You're referencing animal rights groups. Those are all over. I guarantee you the South Korean authorities don't give a shit about US PETA members compared to homegrown animal rights activists. So should Korean activists be discouraged from protesting some of our cultural differences they find objectionable? You shaming them? They should speak their minds and fight for what they believe is right. It's easy to ignore them if I so choose.

How am I shifting the goalposts?

You're applying your own subjective idea of what uncouth carnivorousness is. Your OWN objective value of how bad a misdeed is. You are saying eating dogs is morally worse than eating cows, chickens and pigs. That's your opinion. Not an objective truth. Any vegan would say both are just as bad.

Cows also do not have a fear of humans because we domesticated them. Why is it vastly different?

And finally - even if one is objectively a little worse than the other, they are still both inhumane and different gradations of the same moral crime - cruelty to animals. It's the same shit.

No, in fact, I already explained why it is uncouth. You didn't offer a counterpoint. So it's you who are being subjective.

Why can't we eat other humans? Why is that uncouth? Self-consciousness versus sentience is our last stronghold; the understanding that we are an "it", and we will one day die. But feelings? Tons of animals have feelings. Apes besides ourselves have demonstrated the power of language, and have even created new words. They can learn, and make tools. Koko exhibited grief when her "pet" cat died, and also Robin Williams. Several years ago we discovered homo naledi made sophisticated tools, and had ritual ceremonies to bury their dead. The latter was the last truly distinct thing about us as a hominid species, culturally. They were every bit as human as us, and yet they weren't human-- only hominid. You need to read this article:
Animals think, therefore…

IN 1992, at Tangalooma, off the coast of Queensland, people began to throw fish into the water for the local wild dolphins to eat. In 1998, the dolphins began to feed the humans, throwing fish up onto the jetty for them. The humans thought they were having a bit of fun feeding the animals. What, if anything, did the dolphins think?...

Nevertheless, most scientists now feel they can say with confidence that some animals process information and express emotions in ways that are accompanied by conscious mental experience. They agree that animals, from rats and mice to parrots and humpback whales, have complex mental capacities; that a few species have attributes once thought to be unique to people, such as the ability to give objects names and use tools; and that a handful of animals—primates, corvids (the crow family) and cetaceans (whales and dolphins)—have something close to what in humans is seen as culture, in that they develop distinctive ways of doing things which are passed down by imitation and example. No animals have all the attributes of human minds; but almost all the attributes of human minds are found in some animal or other.

Some anecdotes from that article:

Consider Billie, a wild bottlenose dolphin which got injured in a lock at the age of five. She was taken to an aquarium in South Australia for medical treatment, during which she spent three weeks living with captive dolphins which had been taught various tricks. She herself, though, was never trained. After she was returned to the open sea local dolphin-watchers were struck to see her “tailwalking”—a move in which a dolphin stands up above the water by beating its flukes just below the surface, travelling slowly backwards in a vaguely Michael Jackson manner. It was a trick that Billie seemed to have picked up simply by watching her erstwhile pool mates perform. More striking yet, soon afterwards five other dolphins in her pod started to tailwalk, though the behaviour had no practical function and used up a lot of energy.

The most common test of self-awareness is the ability to recognise yourself in a mirror. It implies you are seeing yourself as an individual, separate from other beings. The test was formally developed in 1970 by Gordon Gallup, an American psychologist, though its roots go back further; Darwin wrote about Jenny, an orang-utan, playing with a mirror and being “astonished beyond measure” by her reflection. Dr Gallup daubed an odourless mark on the face of his subjects and waited to see how they would react when they saw their reflection. If they touched the mark, it would seem they realised the image in the mirror was their own, not that of another animal. Most humans show this ability between the ages of one and two. Dr Gallup showed that chimpanzees have it, too. Since then, orang-utans, gorillas, elephants, dolphins and magpies have shown the same ability. Monkeys do not; nor do dogs, perhaps because dogs recognise each other by smell, so the test provides them with no useful information.

Recognising yourself is one thing; what of recognising others—not just as objects, but as things with purposes and desires like one’s own, but aimed at different ends. Some animals clearly pass this test too. Santino is a chimpanzee in Furuvik zoo in Sweden. In the 2000s zookeepers noticed that he was gathering little stockpiles of stones and hiding them around his cage, even constructing covers for them, so that at a later time he would have something to throw at zoo visitors who annoyed him. Mathias Osvath of Lund University argues that this behaviour showed various types of mental sophistication: Santino could remember a specific event in the past (being annoyed by visitors), prepare for an event in the future (throwing stones at them) and mentally construct a new situation (chasing the visitors away).

Why is it less humane to experiment on chimpanzees than rats? Why is less humane to experiment on rats than insects or invertebrates? If you think there are not sound objective arguments to explain why this is logical, then you need to learn more about animal physiology within the context of human philosophy.

The point is that the nature of an animal's physiology and behavior changes how we perceive and treat them, and it should. This is rational. In the case of dogs, there is also the history of our relationship to that animal, and how we have affected their evolution, as well as their instincts in relation to us. By imposing our wills against nature we have incurred a responsibility to that animal, and to maintain the integrity of that relationship. Unfortunately, it seems to be within our own nature to treat our food with contempt. I don't mind rational flexibility with regard to putting down old dogs and mixing them in as animal feed, as we do with horses, in places where humans struggle and there is greater scarcity, but dogs aren't livestock, and they shouldn't be treated as livestock. It blurs and perverts an otherwise clean and well-defined relationship.

You are thinking in absolutes, and it isn't appropriate. t's primitive. If you're going to be a caveman, sack up, and go hunt a wolf. Capture it. Raise it as livestock, and solely that. Don't breed it with domestic dogs. Don't treat it as a companion. In a few thousand years you will have a distinct livestock sub-species of canine.

Otherwise this is just food opportunism, and at its absolute worst, most of us will defend cannibalism so long as you let the other person die first. Hiding behind morally relativistic arguments when they are not appropriate is an Achilles Heel for our culture, lately.

 

[DrVanNostrand]

Dog,? DOG!

 

[Hog-train]

No, we didn't. "We" is the USA. "They" is South Korea.

You're referencing animal rights groups. Those are all over. I guarantee you the South Korean authorities don't give a shit about US PETA members compared to homegrown animal rights activists. So should Korean activists be discouraged from protesting some of our cultural differences they find objectionable? You shaming them? They should speak their minds and fight for what they believe is right. It's easy to ignore them if I so choose.

Did I say we the United States? I didn't say that did I? You just assumed that.

I'm referencing us Westerners (US, Europe, Australia, etc) who have a problem with eating dog meat - whether they are animals right's groups, people in this thread or random people threatening violence in youtube comments.

No, in fact, I already explained why it is uncouth. You didn't offer a counterpoint. So it's you who are being subjective.

Why can't we eat other humans? Why is that uncouth? Self-consciousness versus sentience is our last stronghold; the understanding that we are an "it", and we will one day die. But feelings? Tons of animals have feelings. Apes besides ourselves have demonstrated the power of language, and have even created new words. They can learn, and make tools. Koko exhibited grief when her "pet" cat died, and also Robin Williams. Several years ago we discovered homo naledi made sophisticated tools, and had ritual ceremonies to bury their dead. The latter was the last truly distinct thing about us as a hominid species, culturally. They were every bit as human as us, and yet they weren't human-- only hominid. You need to read this article:
Animals think, therefore…

Some anecdotes from that article:

Why is it less humane to experiment on chimpanzees than rats? Why is less humane to experiment on rats than insects or invertebrates? If you think there are not sound objective arguments to explain why this is logical, then you need to learn more about animal physiology within the context of human philosophy.

This entire argument is invalidated because pigs and cows also have feelings, feel pain, feel fear, etc. And the level of intelligence from pigs to dogs is comparable - They even know we are going to kill them, so that points to a level of self awareness.

Big difference between that of a rat and a human. It's a false equivalency you are making and you are going through hoops trying to justify that it is more wrong to eat dog than a pig.

Therefore, you are making the SUBJECTIVE argument. Eating dogs is worse than eating pigs.

 

[bowened]

The only people who are more easily triggered than vegans when it comes to killing animals are dog lovers. lol

“You can’t eat our fur babies!!! They’re special!! “

 

[bufetadanacara]

Throw in a mint plant before the pumpkin.

 

[MicroBrew]

Dave Chappelle said it best:

Where is Banchan, would someone please find Banchan so I can make sense of this all.

 

[Po]

Killing pigs should be banned. Killing cows should be banned. Killing salmon should be banned. What's the difference between those animals and dogs?

Its all about American/ European people standards and their obnoxious need to impose them on the world.