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.
I'll send you one of my mutts. She barks nonstop all day long. Probably showing her love towards me but I'm about fed up with it. I could take her out into the fields and shoot her but I would probably feel bad. Maybe you should call the animal control on me since I don't love them enough in your ridiculous eyes. lol. Gimme a break. Oh wait thats what the neighbors did to my pot bellied pig. You animal lovers have to draw the line somewhere.
Have I told you yet how cool you are? 'Shooting your barking mutt', you are the epitome of a 'rational' badass. Hats off to you.
Just because you own a dog and treat it fairly does not mean that is the norm a very large percentage of dogs never experience that.(1)So the Chinese eat dog too, well whoopdy do, is that better or worse than implanting a tumor in it's liver and testing the latest in development chemo on it? If the chemo works, it dies anyway, so they can easily investigate the overall effect. I'm pretty sure that the dog never volunteered for chemo testing.
"Mans best friend" only applies strongly to those of English Heritage, as is said the only way to get an Englishman to cry is to kill his horse or his dog.(2)In countries and cultures that eat dog, it's not mans best friend, its dog chop. Perhaps if you feel strongly enough about it,(3) then you might want to fix the problems at home before pointing out what your neighbors are doing wrong.
I cut through the BS to get right to the heart of the matter. And your post certainly does highlight the matter clearly.
(1) "Whoopdy Do" ... if you think that's bad, how about implanting a tumor and testing chemo on it". Show me one element of my comments which would give you the impression that I find medical testing on dogs or any other animal acceptable conduct? You can't ... so what could possibly be going on inside your head that would make such ridiculous comparisons, or pointless points?
That I put up a thread highlighting the dog for food farming in China as obnoxious and abhorrent behavior is somehow nullified because there are other obnoxious and abhorrent acts against dogs and other animals that take place? This is mental confusion manifesting in verbal vomit. One wrong doesn't negate another ... nor does one need to cover every condemnable act in order to legitimately condemn a specific one. Where the hell does this kind of skewed logic come from?
Might the thought ever occur to you that some scientist or technician in a cancer laboratory somewhere might say "whoopdy doo ... so what if we grow tumors on these dogs and test chemo on them ... look what Michael Vick did to them ... and look what China does ... and look what puppy mills do" ? Does that give them moral license to do what they do? According to your logic, apparently it does prevent anyone from condemning them for it.
(2) That there are countries and people that eat dogs doesn't change the nature of the dog, and his status as man's best friend .... it only means that all men are not dog's best friend.
(3) I can point out what I find wrong with a clear conscience that I practice what I preach in MY HOME .... and China is not my neighbor .. it is a morally bankrupt, Godless communist abomination for which raising dogs for food is just a reflection of their overall disgusting foul nature, as is their practice of cateloging political prisoners DNA and blood types, and keeping them locked up until such time as the need arises for which they then kill them and harvest their organs for medical transplant. Or, the enslavement of large segments of their population, including young children to work in sweat shops to produce toxic toys for other children in other nations, among a long list of other abuses that define them as a cancerous growth on humanity.
Similar condemnation could be made listing all sorts of abuses of many countries, including the United States, and particularly the genocidal nature of the pharmaceutical industry, as well as the military industrial complex, and the international drug trade, and many other things .... NONE of that renders the topic at hand ... eating dogs ... normal or acceptable.
But I tell you what does make ALL OF THAT possible ... yours and so many others intellectual and moral bankruptcy, as so very well demonstrated on this thread.
It's all related .... we've had threads in which the majority on this board believe incest should be legalized. The same type of arguments were used ... this moral relativism and "none of my business" attitude pops up time and time again. This comes from a total absence of morality and normal human response ... sociopathic in it's nature, lacking any form of empathy or compassion ... and totally absent of rational thinking.
Again ... complete and total moral and intellectual bankruptcy. That is the heart of the problem ... and whether it's the Chinese eating dogs ... or Medical Laboratories torturing animals for research .... or Hindus jamming salt and hot peppers in the eyes of their "sacred cows" to get the collapsed beasts off the ground and back up walking to the slaughter house, are just various manifestations of sociopaths and psychopaths acting out their mental illnesses.
Those, such as yourself and others here who choose to rationalize any of these things, help make all of this possible, even to the extreme of claiming it to be freaking normal. And I suppose, if you are a psychopath or a sociopath, maybe it would appear normal.
To the rest of us who choose to condemn it, it isn't even close to normal.
What do you mean by hungry? In an emergency, like when starving to death in the desert, is a different kind of hungry compared to being hungry when you come home from work I would not really blame the former...
This reminds me of a much earlier post from someone that I meant to address ... but instead of searching for it ... I'll add it in here.
That person asked "What if you and your children were starving to death. Would you not cook up your dog and cat and feed them?"
There are a lot of problems with the question itself. And my wife was sitting here when I commented on that question to her ... and like always, her logic is impeccable.
She said ... there are few circumstances imaginable that one could not find something to eat ... roots, cattails, vegetation or something other than the family pets. But if the situation were so drastic, that nothing at all was available to eat ... you'd probably not have enough water either, and would long die of dehydration before starvation, But ... if you had plenty of water ... you could go weeks without food and survive. Therefore, if you had gone weeks without finding any food at all, and you were on the verge of death from starvation ... chances are, if you ate the family pets, that would only buy you a little time, until you eventually would starve anyway. In that short amount of time ... you'd suffer the additional psychological trauma of killing your pets and eating them. Better to resign yourself to the inevitable, and allow your family, including your pets to comfort each other.
This reminds me of a much earlier post from someone that I meant to address ... but instead of searching for it ... I'll add it in here.
That person asked "What if you and your children were starving to death. Would you not cook up your dog and cat and feed them?"
There are a lot of problems with the question itself. And my wife was sitting here when I commented on that question to her ... and like always, her logic is impeccable.
She said ... there are few circumstances imaginable that one could not find something to eat ... roots, cattails, vegetation or something other than the family pets. But if the situation were so drastic, that nothing at all was available to eat ... you'd probably not have enough water either, and would long die of dehydration before starvation, But ... if you had plenty of water ... you could go weeks without food and survive. Therefore, if you had gone weeks without finding any food at all, and you were on the verge of death from starvation ... chances are, if you ate the family pets, that would only buy you a little time, until you eventually would starve anyway. In that short amount of time ... you'd suffer the additional psychological trauma of killing your pets and eating them. Better to resign yourself to the inevitable, and allow your family, including your pets to comfort each other.
Those unrealistic scenarios are a popular way to try and challenge anyone's conviction. Usually they are very flawed...
I would handle it like you, die with dignity rather than survive without it. Since I would consider my dog my "child" and friend, killing and eating it would be as unthinkable as killing and eating my own child.
Some time ago I watched a movie where someone had to kill his dog in order not to starve. I don't remember much about it, but I do remember that the guy had to trick the dog so it looked away and he did not have to look in its face when killing it.
This reminds me of a much earlier post from someone that I meant to address ... but instead of searching for it ... I'll add it in here.
That person asked "What if you and your children were starving to death. Would you not cook up your dog and cat and feed them?"
There are a lot of problems with the question itself. And my wife was sitting here when I commented on that question to her ... and like always, her logic is impeccable.
She said ... there are few circumstances imaginable that one could not find something to eat ... roots, cattails, vegetation or something other than the family pets. But if the situation were so drastic, that nothing at all was available to eat ... you'd probably not have enough water either, and would long die of dehydration before starvation, But ... if you had plenty of water ... you could go weeks without food and survive. Therefore, if you had gone weeks without finding any food at all, and you were on the verge of death from starvation ... chances are, if you ate the family pets, that would only buy you a little time, until you eventually would starve anyway. In that short amount of time ... you'd suffer the additional psychological trauma of killing your pets and eating them. Better to resign yourself to the inevitable, and allow your family, including your pets to comfort each other.
She sounds very intelligent and in-touch with reality and not the least bit "highly-evolved". I like her!
Those unrealistic scenarios are a popular way to try and challenge anyone's conviction. Usually they are very flawed...
I would handle it like you, die with dignity rather than survive without it. Since I would consider my dog my "child" and friend, killing and eating it would be as unthinkable as killing and eating my own child.
Some time ago I watched a movie where someone had to kill his dog in order not to starve. I don't remember much about it, but I do remember that the guy had to trick the dog so it looked away and he did not have to look in its face when killing it.
I love my dog but I do not love it on par with my own son. Not even close. I would strangle my dog with my own two hands to save my son but I would not strangle my son to save my dog.
It has never been .... which is why there has never been the absence of war ... never been the end of poverty ... the end of starvation ... the end of suffering and cruelty.
But there have been pockets of time, where certain societies have achieved lasting peace ... and have shared wealth ... and have managed to feed their communities ... and provided an environment to prevent suffering to various degrees. And we've seen those same societies eventually fail .. and we can analyze the causes of their demise.
Almost every example, great societies are destroyed by greed and the abandonment of morality, be it from the inside and their own greed and immorality, or from the outside and an invader's greed and immorality.
Of course, you have to be a learned individual to understand that.
And I'm talking about fundamental morality ... not some subjective, abstract interpretation here. And though I'm not really a religious type, I can still recognize the qualities inherent in many of the worlds religions, so long as you are selective ... Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, all have certain fundamental elements that are common to all of them and you'll find that they tend to define morality in those things that are most common, and easily understood.
There are prohibitions against murder, and stealing, and abuses, and lying and cheating which form the foundation of morality. It's not all encompassing, but just a foundation. The most prolific theme is love and kindness and honesty, which was preached a lot more than practiced ... but that doesn't dismiss the virtues of the theme.
The bottom line is, there are two basic types of people ... those who strive to define the elements of morality, and attempt to observe them in their activities and dealings with others, and those who claim morality is just too vague and subjective and therefore quick to abandon the idea of morality altogether.
She sounds very intelligent and in-touch with reality and not the least bit "highly-evolved". I like her!
Well that's the 3rd or 4th time you've associated me with the "Highly Evolved" comment .... in error.
That was someone else's comment you keep attributing to me.
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.
I would not really blame the former...
