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.
Appeal to Emotion.
Appeal to Common Belief
Poisoning the Well
Ad Hominem
Aside from that, there are some cultures where eating dogs is normal, whereas there are cultures who consider dogs to be family members. Same is true of cats. Same is true of cows.
It's even worse with the cow for those who practice Hinduism. They see other cultures cutting up and eating something that is not just a "friend" or "companion", but something that they consider to be holy and sacred. Just imagine the reaction if some places start selling Chocolate-Covered Fried Bible.
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. 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.
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 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?
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, 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.
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.
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.
Is this to, an ad homenim ? Or is it just the bloody truth?
I don't want to eat dog. I can think of crazy scenarios where I would though, at least before I started eating people or something. Donner party type of stuff.
I feel I owe you an apology, I did not realize we were debating and not discussing.
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.