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.
ditto that. thank you Guy.
I have one question tho. Christianity believes that we are created in His image, and the animals, along with everything else, are created for our use. So going back to that is not the answer. Where do we go from here? I am open to suggestions. This immoral populace is in need of guidance.
A hundred years ago you wouldn't have found many vegetarians abstaining from meat out of ethical reasons, nowadays it's common. I wouldn't be surprised to see 'sentient' meat dissapear entirely in the next (few) hundred years. Perhaps they'll look back on it the same way we look back on cruelties in the middle ages, unthinkable in todays world.
A hundred years ago you wouldn't have found many vegetarians abstaining from meat out of ethical reasons, nowadays it's common. I wouldn't be surprised to see 'sentient' meat dissapear entirely in the next (few) hundred years. Perhaps they'll look back on it the same way we look back on cruelties in the middle ages, unthinkable in todays world.
Live in your bubble. The cruelties of the middle ages, as you call them, are alive and well all over the world. But hey loving your pet will solve all those issues right. LOL
Are people being burned at the stake or drawn and quartered where you live? It would explain why you're so cynical at the very least.
I don't see what loving my pet has anything to do with what I said in that post either.
No not where I live. Did everybody burn people at the stake or draw and quarter them where they lived in the middle ages? Nope.
You think you have some type of superiority over other humans because you lover your pet and animals so much more than others according to you. As if your on some higher plane of wisdom and conscience. Its rather laughable actually. And YOU compared it to the middle ages not me.
Not at all, you were calling for the elimination of eating dog meat in China, and ignoring similar kinds of treatment in your own back yard. I didn't see in your OP the call to eliminate the use of dogs in medical testing, dog fights, or puppy farms.
What actions have you taken to stop mistreatment of dogs in your own back yard...? Obviously not your home, but in your state, and Country?
This is one country that culturally believes it, and see how we as a culture treat "mans best friend". Not you specifically, but the whole US.
Humans farm animals for food, because you were culturally raised to view dogs as mans best friend, does not negate the fact that other cultures are not raised in that manner, nor that they view those same animals as foodstuffs.
Incidentally, dogs do not view "man" as their best friend, they view the Alpha as security, if that Alpha happens to be a human, that's just peachy for the dog, if it happens to be a cow, it's just peachy for the dog.
Really China is not your neighbor...? So it must be some other country of the far side of the Pacific Ocean then. I'm not claiming that China is perfect by any means, but to rail against them for their treatment of dogs primarily, is rather petty, there are much bigger fish to fry on China, than them eating dogs.
By the way many points you raise have nothing to do with China eating dogs. Interesting that was raised in your argument against me, then did the same thing.
What does Godless have to do with anything? Most notably China is predominantly Taoist which is Pantheistic, or Buddhist. While Buddism does not promote the belief of a "god" in the traditional sense, Taoism more than makes up for it, with many gods. They may not be your gods, but who's to say you're right, and they're not. after all as they say how can a billion chinese people be wrong...?
Eating dogs is perfectly normal and acceptable in many countries in the world, the same as eating frogs legs, snails, lobster, cockroaches, or many other things. "We" may find it distasteful, however since "we" have no say, then that's too bad.
Morally bankrupt... Interesting, since morals have been historically proven to be relative, by who's evaluation, is there an 11th commandment, "Thou shalt not eat dog".
As far as intellectual bankruptcy, your argument plain and simple is that eating dogs is wrong, because they're loyal, and loving, and caring; to whit, an emotional argument, you don't get much more intellectually bankrupt than presenting an emotional argument.
If you said emotionally bankrupt you may have a point, but you cannot put forth an emotional argument, then claim anyone not agreeing with your position is intellectually bankrupt.
I do not think that intellectual bankruptcy means what you think it means...
Of course the unhealthy attachment to a particular cause in another country across the globe (that provoked you to begin this thread), while seemingly ignoring similar kinds of problems in your own back yard could in no way be even close to appearing to be some kind of neurosis?
No those of us who state that for that culture is normal, we have a sense of perspective.
If you know anything about sociopaths (since a psychopath is just a synonym for a sociopath), then they could be on either side of this argument. For instance in their mental construct of the world, dogs are not seen as food, so a country that eats dog as food shakes that construct, which would lead to serious acting out to convince themselves (and others) that this is not the way it should be. Or the other side, since they may have no care about the issue. Thus bandying "Sociopath" adds nothing to your argument, it's ad hominem.
Wow. I think that just about covers it. Great post.
Not at all, you were calling for the elimination of eating dog meat in China, and ignoring similar kinds of treatment in your own back yard. I didn't see in your OP the call to eliminate the use of dogs in medical testing, dog fights, or puppy farms.
I already explained to you the concept which should need no explanation .. and you need it twice? Fine, PAY ATTENTION this time ....
It's an illegitimate argument to suggest that the absence of including every example of animal cruelty in a conversation about a specific form of cruelty is somehow an automatic excusing of the other forms. If anything, the assumption that a sane mind would conclude ... if they chose to assume ... would be that I find those other forms of cruelty just as unacceptable. Why is this such a difficult concept for you? You're making a backwards, illogical assumption. Is it primarily because you choose such a fraudulent tactic to bolster your position ... or are you just that backwards?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
What actions have you taken to stop mistreatment of dogs in your own back yard...? Obviously not your home, but in your state, and Country?
First, you don't know me, or what I do ... and you make a lot of false and backwards assumptions. That said, both of my animals are rescues .. not purchased in a pet store or puppy mill. And we've donated to our local animal shelter, as well as donated to the organizations who set up shop on weekends at the local pet store where we buy our pet food. They are out there almost every weekend with rescued animals, and they take donations to help the costs of feeding these animals, while they are finding homes for them. Furthermore, we created a jewelry product for our business in honor of the the Austin Firemen who rescued our animals from a fire two years ago (the items were for them, but rules prohibited them from accepting gratuities), so we sold those and donated the proceeds to the shelter in their names. We'd like to do more, and if we had the available resources, we would. We do what we can.
Those efforts also include the time I'm spending now, trying, without much success, to reason with morality challenged people about the wrongful nature of raising Dogs on an industry level scale for freaking GD food, which far exceeds a GD puppy mill that sells them as companion animals instead of dinner.
Now, my question is, what have you done ... besides rationalizing the normalcy of Peking Dog ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
This is one country that culturally believes it, and see how we as a culture treat "mans best friend". Not you specifically, but the whole US.
This country is filled with both kinds of people ... the types that mistreat animals in the homes and in industry, but then there are those in the majority who treat their animals better than some humans are treated elsewhere in the world (which is condemned by numskulls). There are people that dedicate their lives to assisting domestic animals that are mistreated ... we have a couple of preserves here in Texas that I've visited who take in cattle, horses, dogs, cats, just about anything that needs a home ... and all across this country, you can't go to a community that doesn't have an animal shelter, and many people that work tirelessly in placement efforts for homeless animals.
There are lots of people who simply aren't aware of the level of mistreatment that goes on such as in the scientific community, and in big industry ... but there are plenty that do, and are constantly fighting an up hill battle against a corrupt government-corporate system ... with people like you who dismiss everything as a conspiracy theory!!!
Here in Austin, one of the most animal friendly cities you'll find ... even on the Hike and Bike trails, there are water stations for dogs set up by a local business in cooperation with the city. That's right ... want to go hiking or jogging with your buddy, there's water for him to drink too.
There's a lot more people that cherish their animals than the ones who don't ... but you wouldn't know that from this disgraceful 20 + pages of responses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Humans farm animals for food, because you were culturally raised to view dogs as mans best friend, does not negate the fact that other cultures are not raised in that manner, nor that they view those same animals as foodstuffs.
As I've said before when presented such tripe ... the American Culture is an infant ... whereas the relationship between domesticated dogs and men are thousands of years old.
And you may have missed it .. but China's relationship with dogs goes back a long way too ... and not as food.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Incidentally, dogs do not view "man" as their best friend, they view the Alpha as security, if that Alpha happens to be a human, that's just peachy for the dog, if it happens to be a cow, it's just peachy for the dog.
What a steaming pile. Either you've never had a dog or you are totally incapable of having a meaningful relationship with one. Myself ... I've had many, and all of them, though each distinct in there own personalities, had one thing in common ... genuine affection and gentleness ... even a couple of very large Shepards that might rip an intruder apart, I used to use as a pillow when I was a kid. And one, would stand in the doorway when it was bad weather outside and wait for my mom to go over and wipe his feet off before coming in the house.
Bottom line ... you don't know a damned thing about dogs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Really China is not your neighbor...? So it must be some other country of the far side of the Pacific Ocean then. I'm not claiming that China is perfect by any means, but to rail against them for their treatment of dogs primarily, is rather petty, there are much bigger fish to fry on China, than them eating dogs.
No ... I'll leave that to you global citizens of the world. China is Japan's neighbor ... Canada and Mexico are ours.
And contrary to your claims ... those bigger fish to fry are just further manifestations of the moral bankruptcy reflected in the industrial production of dogs as meat. It's all connected to the same rotten source.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
By the way many points you raise have nothing to do with China eating dogs. Interesting that was raised in your argument against me, then did the same thing.
What does Godless have to do with anything? Most notably China is predominantly Taoist which is Pantheistic, or Buddhist. While Buddism does not promote the belief of a "god" in the traditional sense, Taoism more than makes up for it, with many gods. They may not be your gods, but who's to say you're right, and they're not. after all as they say how can a billion chinese people be wrong...?
China's government is primarily the issue, and they are most certainly Godless, just as the US government is primarily the issue here, and also Godless. I'm certainly not condemning 1 Billion people ... and I promise you a large number of them hate the Chinese government, and don't eat dogs. But, like most populations, a good number take on the same persona as their leadership ... or, one could say the the leadership reflects the persona of the population. Both have some elements of truth. And as in all countries, the general masses are easily manipulated by propaganda and subliminal influence, while some fortunate people have a natural immunity to such mental corruption, it would seem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Eating dogs is perfectly normal and acceptable in many countries in the world, the same as eating frogs legs, snails, lobster, cockroaches, or many other things. "We" may find it distasteful, however since "we" have no say, then that's too bad.
We? It doesn't sound much like you are in the "we" club ... sounds like you are in the Chinese Peking Dog club.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Morally bankrupt... Interesting, since morals have been historically proven to be relative, by who's evaluation, is there an 11th commandment, "Thou shalt not eat dog".
No ... basic fundamental morals are not relative ... it's when morals become relative that societies fail. Look around you ... this is the result of moral relativism. Like what you see? If so, you're a psychopath.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
As far as intellectual bankruptcy, your argument plain and simple is that eating dogs is wrong, because they're loyal, and loving, and caring; to whit, an emotional argument, you don't get much more intellectually bankrupt than presenting an emotional argument.
A human being that can eliminate emotion from his intellectual process is a disaster looking for a place to happen. The Emotional center is where compassion resides, and intellect without compassion is simply cleverness without constraint. It's the blending of left and right brain functions that measure the level of wisdom a person is capable ... and neither intellect or emotion can function smoothly without each other as a governing mechanism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
If you said emotionally bankrupt you may have a point, but you cannot put forth an emotional argument, then claim anyone not agreeing with your position is intellectually bankrupt.
I believe I included "morally and intellectually" bankrupt into the statement. You separated them. Intellectually bankrupt describes the phony, tactical arguments such as the ones you presented here. Morally bankrupt is what you have to be, in order to engage in the intellectual gamesmanship. Get it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
I do not think that intellectual bankruptcy means what you think it means...
You don't think very much ... so maybe with more practice, you'll get it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
Of course the unhealthy attachment to a particular cause in another country across the globe (that provoked you to begin this thread), while seemingly ignoring similar kinds of problems in your own back yard could in no way be even close to appearing to be some kind of neurosis?
Perhaps you might direct that BS at the dozen threads each day about nonsensical political claptrap. What I posted is a valid human interest story ... at least for those that are actually still in touch with their humanity.
My Neurosis? No ... more like your "emotional-moral-intellectual" bankruptcy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
No those of us who state that for that culture is normal, we have a sense of perspective.
Your perspective is a close up view of your colon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gungnir
If you know anything about sociopaths (since a psychopath is just a synonym for a sociopath), then they could be on either side of this argument. For instance in their mental construct of the world, dogs are not seen as food, so a country that eats dog as food shakes that construct, which would lead to serious acting out to convince themselves (and others) that this is not the way it should be. Or the other side, since they may have no care about the issue. Thus bandying "Sociopath" adds nothing to your argument, it's ad hominem.
A sociopath and a psychopath are two distinct conditions ... they are not synonymous. A sociopath, which I believe describes many respondents on this thread (the claim is that 1 out of every 10 people in the world are sociopaths) can be described as a "Person with a personality disorder that manifests in antisocial attitudes and behaviors, without a conscience. A psychopath is a person suffering severe mental disorder that manifests in abnormal and violent social behavior.
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.
Interesting that was raised in your argument against me, then did the same thing.
