While not getting into whether we should eat meat at all, if we are eating meat, I don’t see how eating dog meat is any more or less immoral than eating most other meats. Eating someone’s pet, whether it be a dog or a pot belly pig is a shit move, but I doubt the restaurant was told they were buying someone’s pet.
studies have demonstrated that both dogs and humans release oxytocin while spending quality time together.
Canines are capable of distinguishing between positive and negative human facial expressions and will react accordingly.
Psychologists believe that the relationship between human and canine is a bidirectional attachment bond, which resembles that of the typical human caretaker/infant relationship, and shows all of the usual hallmarks of a typical bond.
Canines are capable of assessing humans’ emotional states, as well as discriminating humans by levels of familiarity.
Studies have demonstrated that shelter dogs benefit from interacting with complete strangers…These results demonstrate the canines’ innate desire to form an attachment with a human
A study can find practically find any correlation it wants based on its premises. Studies have also found that sugar based diets are better than fat based ones. But neither are very convincing on telling about how to proceed on a specific issue.
No, you anthromorphize and project on them, but you don’t read them. They are an animal and we have no way of knowing what they think. What we have is a cultivated relationship through years of selective breeding, same as could be done with plenty of animals given the reason and time.
I’m glad you love your pet, but you don’t know if they love you. You assume based on human projection, forgetting they are not human.
You’ve never had a friend chicken. God damn are chickens cute, friendly animals if you keep one as a pet. Almost makes me feel bad eating them, all animals are empathetic if you spend some time with them.
You should not justify animals rights not to be slaughtered by their connection to humans.
Pigs are deeply empathic, horses read humans very well, and whales have complex family systems. The division “cute animals” and “edible ones” is just a cultural construct to avoid the moral atrocity.
this is absolutely it, people feel they have deep connections to their pets and that the experience of other animals must be shallow and meaningless by comparison, its a sample issue and a cultural bias.
Wild dogs don’t, and some people don’t have any interest in an empath9c connection with dogs. After that, most animals are deeply interested in their own survival.
Human meat, much like rabbit meat, can cause “rabbit starvation” so I suppose that’s another reason. Plus people get their panties in a wad if you start talking about eating other people for some reason. I personally think there’s plenty of fat billionaires I would not mind eating.
technically everything has a consciousness including plants, beans etc so you lose high ground if youre going to play a moral card in any of this. plants just can run away or scream.
it can still be tragic to eat an animal companion.
let’s just not pretend someone holds sll the moral cards for not eating consciousness to stay alive. nobody in these fleshbags holds any of the high ground there.
If you believe plants experience suffering, and would like to reduce suffering, you should go vegan. The reason is that by eating meat, you kill or harm way more plants — the plants that have been eaten by the animals you eat.
To be clear: I am not disagreeing about introducing more plants to replace meats and other unhealthy stuff on a health and economic perspective. That path of awareness is not what im having a problem with.
What i am disagreeing with is that you or anyone who is eating plant based is using the reasoning that you’ve absolved suffering overall somehow by going vegan. this path of thinking creates a problem for everyone you cannot possibly solve. including yourself.
This is suggesting we must only ever hold an awareness that to live is to suffer and continue imposing suffering on others. And it doesnt matter what you subsitute. It is all suffering from the consciousness perspective if everything is made of consciousness in order to exist(create and distribute). everything you ever consume will have held conscious and will have affected consciousnrss in order to exist and be available to you.
you will never find a solution to that while you exist as a human that requires to consume consiousness to continue to exist. at least in this form as a human. there is no altruistic answer in this kind of an argument.
plants cant scream. they cannot run. they might not have a fluffy tail and do not lick your face but they are still conscious. And that does not make you any less of a monster in this vilifying moralistic scenario you’ve manifested to shove towards all of humanity.
Can you cite the scientific study that or the philosopher who says with so much confidence that plants (or even animals, for that matter) have consciousness? Don’t get me wrong, my personal belief is closer to your statement, but I have always held that as belief, not fact.
i not sure nor can i imagine what that answers in anything ive said here. so im just going to assume you’ve misread and misposted and are lost or just a shitposter.
While not getting into whether we should eat meat at all, if we are eating meat, I don’t see how eating dog meat is any more or less immoral than eating most other meats. Eating someone’s pet, whether it be a dog or a pot belly pig is a shit move, but I doubt the restaurant was told they were buying someone’s pet.
I can’t think of any animal that has such an innate empathetic connection to humans as dogs. Dogs can read us, and we can read them.
I find it strange how you’re getting downvoted, since there’s so much evidence to back up your point. There’s literally a whole page on Wikipedia that goes over the human-canine bond and how it’s unique.
Some points it brings up:
A study can find practically find any correlation it wants based on its premises. Studies have also found that sugar based diets are better than fat based ones. But neither are very convincing on telling about how to proceed on a specific issue.
I started on 8 upvotes it’s been a tremendous journey
No, you anthromorphize and project on them, but you don’t read them. They are an animal and we have no way of knowing what they think. What we have is a cultivated relationship through years of selective breeding, same as could be done with plenty of animals given the reason and time.
I’m glad you love your pet, but you don’t know if they love you. You assume based on human projection, forgetting they are not human.
You’ve never had a friend chicken. God damn are chickens cute, friendly animals if you keep one as a pet. Almost makes me feel bad eating them, all animals are empathetic if you spend some time with them.
Can you read a cat, does a cat read you?
You should not justify animals rights not to be slaughtered by their connection to humans.
Pigs are deeply empathic, horses read humans very well, and whales have complex family systems. The division “cute animals” and “edible ones” is just a cultural construct to avoid the moral atrocity.
EDIT: typos
this is absolutely it, people feel they have deep connections to their pets and that the experience of other animals must be shallow and meaningless by comparison, its a sample issue and a cultural bias.
Wild dogs don’t, and some people don’t have any interest in an empath9c connection with dogs. After that, most animals are deeply interested in their own survival.
Wild dogs are very scary
Some “domestics” are scary too
Now add human into that sentence
Which one? They wrote two sentences.
it’s a safety concern. Cannibalism spreads diseases easier.
Human meat, much like rabbit meat, can cause “rabbit starvation” so I suppose that’s another reason. Plus people get their panties in a wad if you start talking about eating other people for some reason. I personally think there’s plenty of fat billionaires I would not mind eating.
Nah cannibalism is cringe
Kill the billionaires and turn them into corpse fertilizer instead!
So does the gigantic animal industry we have today.
technically everything has a consciousness including plants, beans etc so you lose high ground if youre going to play a moral card in any of this. plants just can run away or scream.
it can still be tragic to eat an animal companion.
let’s just not pretend someone holds sll the moral cards for not eating consciousness to stay alive. nobody in these fleshbags holds any of the high ground there.
If you believe plants experience suffering, and would like to reduce suffering, you should go vegan. The reason is that by eating meat, you kill or harm way more plants — the plants that have been eaten by the animals you eat.
I think the point is that we all eat food, and at some point in it’s production, some suffering happened. and that’s alright
edit:
this has nothing to do with privilege. it’s talking about the democracy of food.
this is the peak of privilege
why won’t you leave me alone
I tend to respond to bad takes.
leave me alone
dude, I don’t even know you. I see nonsense and I post a reply. feel free to block me if you want.
To be clear: I am not disagreeing about introducing more plants to replace meats and other unhealthy stuff on a health and economic perspective. That path of awareness is not what im having a problem with.
What i am disagreeing with is that you or anyone who is eating plant based is using the reasoning that you’ve absolved suffering overall somehow by going vegan. this path of thinking creates a problem for everyone you cannot possibly solve. including yourself.
This is suggesting we must only ever hold an awareness that to live is to suffer and continue imposing suffering on others. And it doesnt matter what you subsitute. It is all suffering from the consciousness perspective if everything is made of consciousness in order to exist(create and distribute). everything you ever consume will have held conscious and will have affected consciousnrss in order to exist and be available to you.
you will never find a solution to that while you exist as a human that requires to consume consiousness to continue to exist. at least in this form as a human. there is no altruistic answer in this kind of an argument.
plants cant scream. they cannot run. they might not have a fluffy tail and do not lick your face but they are still conscious. And that does not make you any less of a monster in this vilifying moralistic scenario you’ve manifested to shove towards all of humanity.
Can you cite the scientific study that or the philosopher who says with so much confidence that plants (or even animals, for that matter) have consciousness? Don’t get me wrong, my personal belief is closer to your statement, but I have always held that as belief, not fact.
Sure, but not all dogs are pets.Edit: Yep, wrong comment.
i not sure nor can i imagine what that answers in anything ive said here. so im just going to assume you’ve misread and misposted and are lost or just a shitposter.