What's Wrong With Eating Dogs - Everything. (legal, drug, independent)

[Ripley6174]

Originally Posted by KUchief25

Survival of the fittest. Look it up.

Perhaps you should, because you fundamentally misunderstand 'fittest'.

[Neuling]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

A Chinese animal lover consoles a dog locked in a caravan of 500 dogs going to be butchered for meat.

What's wrong with eating dog meat? – Global Public Square - CNN.com Blogs



If this doesn't wound your soul, you don't have a soul.

What a heart wrenching sight ... to treat such a loyal companion creature known as "Man's Best Friend" like this is a sad testimony to the nature of a large segment of humans on this planet. Totally disgusting is the culture of these beastly humans that can do this to an animal that has become a domesticated member of the human family ... fiercely loyal, and noble in self sacrifice in defense of it's human pack.

Dog spelled backwards is God.

Eating a dog is extreme, I guess the Chinese are on average not as highly evolved in terms of empathy etc. as we in the West are.
Eating any mammal is a sin in my view, it is a bit like eating humans. They are all so close to us, much closer than it seems, be it pigs, dogs, horses, cows, sheep...

[hotair2]

Originally Posted by Theophane

Good! If it breaks your heart that means you have one.

I have three. I live on a large farm. I love all animals actually, but dogs are special to me. People live longer when they have a dog. The fact is having a dog is better for you. They have medical benefits.

What are the Health Benefits of Owning a Pet

[KUchief25]

LOL. So you use your dog to get dates. Maybe they can cure cancer soon. Hell all the money poured into research by humans has gotten nowhere. Maybe Fido can poop out a cure.

[KUchief25]

Originally Posted by Ripley6174

Perhaps you should, because you fundamentally misunderstand 'fittest'.

Mutt standing over his human meal. Who is the fittest in that situation?

[Neuling]

Originally Posted by hotair2

I have three. I live on a large farm. I love all animals actually, but dogs are special to me. People live longer when they have a dog. The fact is having a dog is better for you. They have medical benefits.

What are the Health Benefits of Owning a Pet

Plus, they are just the most loyal creatures you can imagine. Every year families abandon dogs just to go on vacation. They set them "free" tens or even hundreds of miles from home, but somehow some dogs manage to find back home, which can take days or weeks of running and starving. And they don't even hold a grudge...

[gallowsCalibrator]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Talk about ad hominem .... "fried bible" ? Such a statement insinuates that my aversions to dogs being eaten is born of a Biblical conviction, hence the reference.

Has nothing to do specifically with your religion or anything about you. Just a generic analogy "Some people consider the Bible as sacred, what would be responses if people ate the Bible" to "Hindus see cows as sacred; some people eat cows".

The fact that you reacted as such, means that the analogy is more applicable than I would have originally thought.

Far from it ... I was actually born with a caring soul long before I heard any mention of, nor had any knowledge whatever of a Bible. And the affection between humans and dogs is spontaneous, and doesn't require theological training or instruction. In fact, my relationship with my dog has no religious component at all ... I'm not even sure what religion she is, to be honest ... though it would be safe to say it's probably not Hindu, given her love of beef.

Strawman. My analogy had nothing to do with your religion, or that of your dog.

But aside that, it's a rather sad commentary that so many are confused about the basic English language meaning of such common terms a "Normal".

What is normal here may not be normal elsewhere. Just as what is normal in today's time may not be what is normal 50 or 100 years ago. A good analogy of this would be women wearing jeans. It is quite normal today, but 100 years ago, it would have been abnormal.

That something occurs or some action is taken somewhere and at some point in time, by some culture or people does not render it normal by default. Normal is defined as: conforming to an established standard; typical; usual, or expected. Not that something just happens or is done somewhere. It might be typical behavior of cannibals to eat humans, but that doesn't render it normal.

There are many cultures with unique habits unto themselves alone, but it doesn't make it normal, by universal standards. By the same token, I'd say there are more dogs in this world waiting table side for table scrap offerings, than there are dogs on the table becoming table scraps .... and that's why eating them is not normal either. Get it?

> Implying that there are universal "norms".

Moreover, I'd say that those who believe that cows are really the reincarnation of their Aunt Dhara

Aunt Dhara?

make up a tiny portion of the world's populace, compared to those who recognize beef as a standard food source for human consumption, which is widely recognized as normal and typical and usual, and expected ... all of those things that define "normal". To me it's an immaterial side issue that cows are considered food in the Bible ... but not dogs

In one sentence, you mock Hinduism. The mocking, most likely an attempt to ridicule their belief system into discrediting it? Sounds like another Poisoning the Well.

In the next, you mention what the Bible says. That sounds like Special Pleading.

The reality is, this view of cows in the Hindu religion is not even typical (normal) of most other religions who believe the advance of the human soul is an upward movement of ascension to higher forms, and not a devolving into lower species. So, in that regard, Hinduism is also atypical of religion in general .... or not normal.

Yet again, Poisoning the Well.

I have no idea where this "sacred cow" philosophy originated, but if it shares a similar self serving purpose as most other religions, it may be that the founders of Hinduism had among their sacred holdings, large pastures of prime beef cattle which they wanted to keep for themselves, and out of the hands of the unwashed masses.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Is this to, an ad homenim ? Or is it just the bloody truth?

See above.

You provide not even one piece of actual datum as to why dogs can not be a source of food for another culture. Your belief system ensures that you will never eat dog meat intentionally nor willingly. My belief system ensure that I will never eat dog meat intentionally nor willingly.

I also refuse to eat cat, duck, bunny, and a host of other animals. Doesn't mean I should force others to not eat said meats. Nor should I mock their choice of sustenance.

[Theophane]

Originally Posted by hotair2

I have three. I live on a large farm. I love all animals actually, but dogs are special to me. People live longer when they have a dog. The fact is having a dog is better for you. They have medical benefits.

What are the Health Benefits of Owning a Pet

Dogs are special to me, too.

[Dampylle]

Originally Posted by GuyNTexas

Talk about ad hominem .... "fried bible" ?

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

But aside that, it's a rather sad commentary that so many are confused about the basic English language meaning of such common terms a "Normal".

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.

That something occurs or some action is taken somewhere and at some point in time, by some culture or people does not render it normal by default. Normal is defined as: conforming to an established standard; typical; usual, or expected.

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

Not that something just happens or is done somewhere. It might be typical behavior of cannibals to eat humans, but that doesn't render it normal.

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?

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.

What is "normal" in Chicago may well not be "normal" in Tokyo or Budapest.

There are many cultures with unique habits unto themselves alone, but it doesn't make it normal, by universal standards.

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.

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)

Moreover, I'd say that those who believe that cows are really the reincarnation of their Aunt Dhara make up a tiny portion of the world's populace

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.

compared to those who recognize beef as a standard food source for human consumption

try just shy of 30 percent (26.32 percent to be more specific) compared to Christianity and Islam... so not really.

The reality is, this view of cows in the Hindu religion is not even typical (normal) of most other religions who believe the advance of the human soul is an upward movement of ascension to higher forms, and not a devolving into lower species. So, in that regard, Hinduism is also atypical of religion in general .... or not normal.

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.

I have no idea where this "sacred cow" philosophy originated, but if it shares a similar self serving purpose as most other religions, it may be that the founders of Hinduism had among their sacred holdings, large pastures of prime beef cattle which they wanted to keep for themselves, and out of the hands of the unwashed masses.

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.

Is this to, an ad homenim ? Or is it just the bloody truth?

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

[Theophane]

Ad Hominem, Poisoning the Well, Assertion, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Common Belief....

Don't let us catch you using any of the above techniques, Dampyville.