Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
lol? WTF does that have to do with being a family member?
Thank you for appreciating my attempt at humor.
Yes, SOME, not all, animal owners in this thread have said that their dog is part of the family, they value them as highly, if not higher, than humans..... one poster even said she's kill humans who tried to eat dogs.
Now, if dogs are "family" and "families" have mommys and daddys, what do mommys and daddys do to make a "family".?
Yes, I'm being a smartarse BUT I'm just trying to point out the sickness of dog worship.
Just because pig spelled backwards is gip, chicken spelled backwards is nekcich, and not "god" doesn't make them less importatnt
I heard that men in Korea eat dog to act macho. Is this true or false?
I also heard that in Phillipines they eat dog. True or false?
Dogs are eaten in virtually every East Asian country with varying levels of acceptability. From the clear majority having no issue with it to a lot of people not even knowing it is legal (Japan).
Dog and cat meat is rarer than pork, beef, or chicken because it is usually more expensive since cats and dogs eat meat and you'd have to raise another set of livestock just to feed them.
I used to know a girl from Thailand who was very Westernized and we'd sometimes talk about food, including the eating of cats and dogs. She said that it was accepted throughout most of Thailand, but not everyone eats it since it is a little on the expensive side and some of the more Westernized Thais (such as herself) have some reservations about it. She compared it to eating lobster. It's somewhat common, somewhat rare, kinda expensive, and not everyone does it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Obviously, I am a person who respects the cooperative and affectionate relationship that has existed between dogs and men for thousands of years, which has not been an isolated cultural peculiarity, but a global relationship, enjoyed and practiced by countless cultures.
And as far as I know, I'm not aware of any basis in Chinese cultural or religious heritage that makes dogs a sacred dish. It's just another example of abhorrent systematic behavior in China, which includes other condemnable actions like harvesting human organs for sale, or enslaving their population in manufacturing gulags.
Frankly, I feel people like you might make a more compatible protein alternative for the soulless miscreants who eat such noble creatures as dogs.
While I do agree with virtually everything you are saying. I am a dog lover myself, I strongly disagree with many Chinese culinary practices (like some chefs believing the pain makes the animal taste better), and do agree there is much wrong with China that a lot of Sinophiles either ignore or embrace.
However, you do need to remember that cows are considered holy to Hindus and they find the practice of eating cows deeply disturbing. To them the cow is holy because it provides milk that can be drunk by humans, sort of like a nursing mother. So kill and eat a cow would be like killing and eating your own mother to them. Also, pigs have comparable intelligence to a dog. They have individual personalities and are very intelligent for a non-primate.
Ad Hominem is an attempt to link the truth of a claim to a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it, thus an analogy or example using an object and a generalized example of a person... is not ad hominem.
Making your comment Poisoning the Well as you attempt to discredit based on inflammatory language
That would again be Poisoning the well in an attempt to imply those in dissent with your view do not understand the language rather than addressing a point.
No ... "poisoning the well" is an attempt to discredit everything a person is has said, or will say, in advance. Pointing out a misuse or misunderstanding of an English language term has nothing whatever to do with "poisoning the well".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle
Which is still a subjective criteria. What is "normal" for group A may well not be for group B. Attempting to impose the normalacy of group A upon group B because group A preffers it would be an appeal to Emotion
Horse hockey .... as we say in Texas, a whole lotta hat and no cattle. There's a never ending effort to define and redefine "Normal" ... in the same manner there is to do the same with "right & wrong". And both can be individual as well as collective judgments. Using YOUR formula, group A could be a primitive culture in the deep jungles of Africa who may practice cannibalism, while group B in Texas finds such behavior abhorrent. According to you, the canibals are behaving "Normally", while group B is wrong for passing "judgment". And that's patently absurd.
Where I come from, this is called rationalization ... and throughout history, much harmful and abhorrent behaviors have been committed by those "ratonalizing" the need, right, or necessity for such actions. For those that commit these behaviors, they feel something justifies that behavior, else they wouldn't do it. Rationalizing a behavior neither makes it right, moral, or normal. And it doesn't matter how many have done the rationalizing either .. mobs often commit gravely harmful and wrong acts. In absense of a universal consensus about what is normal, an individual or group may make that determination for themselves ... but more often than not, there already is such a consensus, or has been a long standing consensus to which one can look to for clarification of what "normal" actually is. In the example of canibalism, such a consensus is well established by the vast majority who have long rejected it.
The same is true of eating "man's best friend". The dog didn't get that label because of his tastiness on the dinner table. That's prima facia evidence that it isn't "normal".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle
Hyperbole used to illustrate a Hasty Generalization does not equate to proof of a claim. If group B has a higher head count than group A and finds action X normal then what would make group A's view more "normal" than that of group B?
More "rationalization". You're attempting to make "normal" defined by popularity in a given subset ... again, the canibalistic tribe is a subset where it may be universally and unanimously agreed that eating people is proper ... yet, 100% consensus here still doesn't make eating people "normal".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle
See that is the problem with subjective view, it varies from local to local and group to group. To the hindu which have a practicing population listing them as the third most prevalent religious group in the world one could easily say that the practice of not eating beef is in fact more normal than the specific Nazarene practice of not imbibing alcohol or smoking. One could also say that the Islamic practice of not eating pork was in fact more normal than the Hindu practice of not eating beef... but only in a generalized sense which meant that doing so would be ignoring different societal norms based on region or culture.
Hahaha .. really funny you are. Obviously I'm the one with a "subjective" view, but you aren't? Hahaha .... so all of this you've written has no association with your personal views and opinions?
Apparently, you are as confused about the meaning of "Subjective" as you are "Normal".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle
What is "normal" in Chicago may well not be "normal" in Tokyo or Budapest.
That is again Appeal to Emotion designed to cater to the local view in order to segway this time into another Hasty Generalization used to elevate one norm over another without actually proving it more valid.
"Hasty Generalization"? Really now .... you can't possibly know how long I've contemplated the issue, now can you? This view of mine dates back a long time. Consequently, there is nothing "hasty" about it. And I declare to you that directly opposing concepts cannot both be normal. So again, we get right back to the definition of what is "Normal". You want to focus tightly on individual practices of smaller subsets to define what is "normal" for that subset, while dismissing a broader picture as a "generalization". I contend that it is the broader view that better defines "normal", and NOT the tightly focused one.
As an example ... generally, humans have two arms and two legs ... that is "Normal". Though not everyone is born with this complement of limbs, and some lose them over time. Nevertheless, the statement is true ... it is normal for humans to have two arms and two legs ... and it is not normal to be missing one or more of those limbs. This is both true, and a generalization. In fact, if you just focused your view on an group of military veterans in an orthopedic hospital, you might very well conclude, erroneously so, that humans missing limbs is normal, when it is not normal at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle
Would you care to present empirical data that for example would show that consuming pork is a "normal" practice in a general sense via census and statistics rather than assertion? Or perhaps find comparative data regarding beef eaters as opposed to stacked numbers involving vegan, vegitatian, hindu, and other groups who do not eat beef to actually illustrate a point (keeping in mind that this would still only prove a general sense not "normal" in a specific sense and so still does not act as a blanket proof of your claim only a generalization in support of it)
Wow ... you want to play "heads you win, tails I lose"? You want to create a strawman argument, and then say it doesn't matter how I answer becuase it would still be wrong no matter what?
How bout we stick to the subject of dog eating heathens instead?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle
Actually census data lists Hinduism as the 3rd most common religion world wide... so it is hardly a "tiny portion of the world's populace" with roughly 1 billion adherents... which for comparison is 50 percent of the global Christian population give or take a few million. So again... not really "tiny" in the clinical sense.
try just shy of 30 percent (26.32 percent to be more specific) compared to Christianity and Islam... so not really.
Are you suggesting the the entire Hindu population of India or any other country abstain from eating meat ... and that none of them eat beef? Or that they don't practice extreme cruelty to cows? If that is your argument, you'd be WRONG on all three counts. If that's not your claim, then your point is pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle
That is a skewed argument as you present no listing of contrary religions and do so in contradiction to the already mentioned statistics listing Hinduism as the third most prevalent religion world wide. If the total proponents of those other religions do not exceed the total proponents of Hinduism you can not even argue the Appeal to Popular belief you are attempting.... which as an Appeal Fallacy would still not prove your subjective claim as factual.
You just engaged in a deliberate lie of fallaciously including the entire Hindu population on earth as being non-meat eaters, while simulaneously demonstrating an incomprehensible lack of grasp of basic mathematics. If the Hindu population is indeed he 3rd largest religion in the world, that would seem to suggest that there are two others, larger. Those other two, being larger individually, would obviously be much larger, combined. Given the absense of any religious edicts prohibiting the eating of meat in Islam and Christianity, I think you are "barking" up the wrong tree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dampylle
Assertion made via Argument from Ignorance to enact Poisoning the Well to create a negative context for use in Ad Hominem to dismiss or discredit a religious population.... not a very logical argument in any sense of the word.
Ad Hominem, Argument from Ignorance, Poisoning the Well, Assertion, Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Common Belief, and Hasty Generalization.... so no not truth since it does not actually prove anything
As I've thoroughly outlined ... you cite "subjective opinion" repeatedly, as if your opinion isn't subjective, when the reality is, all opinion is subjective by nature of it being an opinion. As for ignorance, I understand the definition of "subjective", whereas you seem not to. And you describe my view of "normal" as overly broad and general, ignoring the fact that this is the ONLY method of accurately defining normal, as I've defined in previous hypothetical regarding how many limbs is normal for a human being.
And, you've constantly engaged in obfuscation and diversion by repeatedly moving the conversation away from the original topic of the morality of eating dogs, to the a stawman argument about Hindus aversions to beef.
As for "poisoning the well" ... the expressed opinons, tactics, fallacies, and deliberate diversions do more in that regard than I could ever hope to achieve if I were so disposed.
My dog would die a sack of skin and bones before she's hurt me .... and she knows that feeling is mutual.
I feel sorry for those who cannot fathom that type of loyalty and love. You're really missing the best part of life.
Actually, the only part that means anything.
I agree that doegs have a special place in our culture, and the reasons you have cited a great reasons not to eat YOUR dog.
However, once we start giveing certain animals special status, it won't be long before they all have such status.
Like marine mammals. What so special about a mammal, just because it lives in the sea? You can shoot a dear, but not a seal, even if seals are overpopulating, wrecking boats in marinas and attacking surfers.
While I do agree with virtually everything you are saying. I am a dog lover myself, I strongly disagree with many Chinese culinary practices (like some chefs believing the pain makes the animal taste better), and do agree there is much wrong with China that a lot of Sinophiles either ignore or embrace.
However, you do need to remember that cows are considered holy to Hindus and they find the practice of eating cows deeply disturbing. To them the cow is holy because it provides milk that can be drunk by humans, sort of like a nursing mother. So kill and eat a cow would be like killing and eating your own mother to them. Also, pigs have comparable intelligence to a dog. They have individual personalities and are very intelligent for a non-primate.
No, I don't need to remember that, because one ... there's a great deal of evidence that it's total nonsense, for which I've already posted about the extreme, incomprehensible cruelty Hindus inflict upon cows in their cattle drives to slaughter houses in India ... to include wrapping their worn off hoofs with bags, forcing them to continue walking on the bloody stumps ... twisting and breaking their tails, and rubbing salt and hot peppers in their eyes when they collapse in order to get them back up walking, etc. Perhaps this is how Hindus treat their mothers?
And secondly, this has nothing to do with the topic of eating dogs ... it's merely a rationalization, assuming that a dog and a cow are the same, or that some other practice in some other place with some other type of animal could either prove or disprove the morality of an entirely separate activity. This is an extreme rationalization, as well as a logical fallacy, particularly when it is also based on other totally false assumptions.
I say "other false assumptions" because this entire debate has strayed into the area of Chinese "Cultural Habit" as defining what is normal for them, and therefore not our place to judge ... and there are two fallacies within this argument. First, the assumption is that treating dogs as common food source is indeed part of the Chinese culture is false, it's simply not true. In Buddhism, the Dog is a revered animal with a long history. The Shih Tzu was a palace guard dog, and a companion animal treasured by the Chinese so much, that when trade opened with the West, they refused to sell them. These animals were often prized gifts to Chinese Emperors. And EVERY Chinese Palace has prominently displayed in front .. Foo Dogs, a mythical mix of lion and dog, which is said to be guarding the palace. Consequently, the modern day pratcice of converting the dog into a common food source is an abandonment of traditional Chinese Culture, not the expression of it.
So, it might now be a common practice in China, but that doesn't make it an element of China's culture or normal. It's a manifestation of a lack of commitment to the historical culture .. or a "redefining" of what was not normal before, to normal now, for modern convenience or reason.
So the "culture" argument is as false as this nonsense about Hindus reverence for their Cows .... they torture these beasts .... they confine them to small plots of land which quickly become overgrazed and the animals remain on bare sustenance just enough to survive for their entire lives, to produce milk and manure for farming. When they've outlived their usefulness, they are cruelly driven to slaughter houses.
Once one becomes informed, both arguments fail miserably on merit alone.
The Chinese as a whole are a mercenary bunch. Not only will they poison us with toxic toys, toothpaste and various other products, but they will follow suit with their own people. These are the people that practice the death penalty to farm organs. Why being indebted to them monetarily is okay with many here just to save a few bucks on junk and crap shoddily manufanctured in their slave labor factories is beyond me.
I agree that doegs have a special place in our culture, and the reasons you have cited a great reasons not to eat YOUR dog.
However, once we start giveing certain animals special status, it won't be long before they all have such status.
Like marine mammals. What so special about a mammal, just because it lives in the sea? You can shoot a dear, but not a seal, even if seals are overpopulating, wrecking boats in marinas and attacking surfers.
At the risk of repeating myself, this is another "rationalization". Eating dogs has nothing to do with sea mammals, which is an entirely separate argument.
I have to laugh a bit at the " once we start giving certain animals special status, it won't be long before they all have such status". That sounds like the old joke about the Army War General who cautions that "giving peace a chance is dangerous ... because if it works, the next thing you know, peace will be breaking out all over".
But seriously ... we give all sorts of things "special status", including animals. And if there is a fundamental principle at the foundation of this debate, that would have to be the issue of discernment, as I've previously mentioned. And it is my contention that Dogs have EARNED special status over the long history of man and dog.
We have numerous roles in which dogs assist human beings in a mutually beneficial working capacity, from police work, to ranching, to seeing eye dogs ... sled dogs ... to emergency rescue dogs ... and the list goes on. and I'm not just suggesting that it is simply their usefulness that earns them special status, but on a much deeper level, that usefulness and ability to perform so many different roles is proof of their intelligence and ability to think, process information, and make decisions. Furthermore, that they are willing to do all of these things for us, proves their loyalty and desire to please us. And it isn't just about food.
As an example of that intelligence and decision making ... my wife taught our dog how to roll over on command. But she was perplexed as to why the dog sometimes would roll over, and sometimes spin around instead. So I started observing her and the dog ... and realized that it wasn't the dog that was confused. When she would point her finger straight out and then rotate it ... the dog would roll over every time. But if she inadvertently pointed her finger more toward the ground, rather than straight out, and rotated it, the dog perceived that to be a different command ... that since the command was slightly different, the desire was different, so she decided that spinning around was the only other logical choice between the two actions. That's an incredible demonstration of intuitiveness and decision making. What the heck do you want me to do? Spin around or roll over ... make up your mind!
Now, with all that said, the emotional connection between a dog and their family (pack) often exceeds the strength commonly demonstrated between human family members. A dogs loyalty is unmatched, and it's affection unconditional. And for those who have developed a close bond with a dog, they understand fully, the broad emotional palette a dog possesses ... from joy to sadness, excitement to depression, satisfaction to disappointment ... and self consciousness and embarrassment. And it is always a dog's desire to please, and seeking approval. And the only thing that prevents a dog and his owner from having a conversation, is the fact that the dogs vocal cords aren't structured for speech ... yet they seem to understand the human language better than most people understand dog language. The owner who takes the time to meet halfway in that effort, will discover all of these qualities in that "Dumb Dog". The dog isn't nearly a dumb, nearly as often as their masters are.
That's why they have special status ... they've earned it, and they deserve it, in return for the special status they generously and unconditionally grant to us with that loyalty, and willingness to do whatever we ask them to do ... including risking their own lives to protect you. They deserve nothing less in return ... and certainly far better than being eaten by the humans they so willingly trust.
It's a matter of honor ....something that seems to be far more rare on the human side of this relationship.
The Norwegians and Japanese are vilified for killing and eating whales, and while I wouldn't eat whale, I don't think that a country that routinely slaughters cows, pigs, goats, lambs, etc can condemn other countries that have been killing mammals that swim for centuries for food. Yes, whales are 'intelligent' but pigs are supposed to be one of the smarter mammals. I do draw the line at cats, dogs and primates though. It is just wrong in my view to slaughter animals that have been bred and conditioned to be faithful companions to men, and monkeys who are not too much different from us - at least physically. This may be a form of hypocrisy on my part, but the only recourse in my view is to support organizations that pressure the respective countries to not eat them, and to apply economic pressure, but if they don't get it, they just don't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
