Should we allow the eating of dog and cat meat?

[Last of the Fraggles]

But... you made the argument. That you aren't OK with somebody's diet if it affects something you value. (paraphrasing)

Are you recanting that statement?

Or do you insist it's OK for you to violate other people's values, but not OK for them to violate yours? (I'm hoping you're better than that)


Bear in mind, in a social sense, it not being OK to do X because it goes against certain values is a very important concept. Raw social contract as a basis for society without ethics is not pretty. That might not be a road you want to go down.

There is a difference between 'I'm not OK with it' and 'I expect someone else to change their behaviour because I am not OK with it'.

I notice in your final paragraph you sidestep into 'certain values' rather than 'my values'. That's the crux of the matter though and why arguments based on morals and ethics are largely pointless - if we all agree the 'certain values' then there is no need for the argument, if we don't then there is no basis to assert one set of values better than the other.

Stepping back to the discussion at hand though, 'I don't like you eating dog' isn't much of an argument. 'I don't like you eating my dog because I own it, and am attached to it, and get great pleasure from its company' is better, possibly even strengthened by the addition of 'and I will knock you out if you try to harm it'.

 

[marksman]

Granted, there are are a few places in Europe where people eat dogs and cats

I think those places are called sports stadium concession stands.

 

[Babbylonian]

Meanwhile soya provides an excellent, balanced vegetable protein source, and all the bits of protein you'll get from beans, bread, spuds, rice, cheese etc etc etc all count.

Meat appeal is a whole different ball-game though, and I confess to being an addict.

One of my big issues is that, as a friend of mine frequently points out, the soy-based meat substitutes are priced too high, typically higher than the equivalent amount of real meat. It seems pretty clear that those products aren't aimed at the masses but at a niche market that is willing to pay a premium not to eat meat. And such products must be cheaper to produce than meat since soy protein is often used as filler in meat products.

Given that I have no particular moral problem with eating meat and enjoy its mouth feel (gross!), I'll just keep on eating it. It's just too bad there's no price incentive to switch.

 

[RelativeSpace]

There is a difference between 'I'm not OK with it' and 'I expect someone else to change their behaviour because I am not OK with it'.

So... you're not OK with them doing it, but you're- in actuality- OK with them doing it?

In common usage of the word OK, not expecting/wanting to change somebody's behavior generally means you're OK with them doing that thing.

Either you're OK with it, or you've just given up- which isn't the same as not wanting them to change their behavior.

The way you're using this word- OK- is far from clear.

I notice in your final paragraph you sidestep into 'certain values' rather than 'my values'.

Uhm, no, I was just generalizing- that's what happens when we move to a social scale. No one person has those values- they're more of a result of a cultural tug of war.

The point is that without any of them at all, it would be a very different society indeed- and there is no case where 100% of the people agree with any given value being imposed on them.

If you're against social rules being imposed on you based on the values of others, do you or do you not also agree that others are entitled to the same right to be free from the imposition of values they do not hold?

That's the crux of the matter though and why arguments based on morals and ethics are largely pointless

Nonsense. It's trivial to establish certain objective morals- though even if we do, not all people value morality. Should they be free from all of its constraints if they don't value it?

if we don't then there is no basis to assert one set of values better than the other.

If you're talking about morally better- well, there is logic, internal consistency, and all that jazz.


The bottom line is whether or not it's acceptable to impose moral restrictions upon a society where not all members of that society agree with having moral restrictions placed on them.

 

[RelativeSpace]

One of my big issues is that, as a friend of mine frequently points out, the soy-based meat substitutes are priced too high, typically higher than the equivalent amount of real meat.

They are cheaper to produce- but more expensive to distribute in small quantities and occupy shelf space with a low turnover. If more people bought them, economy of scale and competition would push the price down below that of meat very quickly.

Bit of a catch 22, maybe?

But you can buy the stuff direct and in bulk and save a lot of money. Search online for TVP or TSP. It's used in military rations, prisons, cafeterias, fast food, you name it. All you have to do is add water and flavour (any broth or spice mix will do) and it's like ground meat. Some places even have pre-flavoured stuff; beef, chicken, bacon, taco, etc.

*very* cheap. Couldn't be easier to prepare either. Just add water and wait a couple minutes. Doesn't even have to be hot water.

 

[GlennB]

One of my big issues is that, as a friend of mine frequently points out, the soy-based meat substitutes are priced too high, typically higher than the equivalent amount of real meat. It seems pretty clear that those products aren't aimed at the masses but at a niche market that is willing to pay a premium not to eat meat.

I can only suppose you mean final products like 'soy chili ready to heat+eat' and so on?. Basic dry soy mince is cheap as chips. But really the point was not about soy specifically, just the lack of any real need to eat meat, especially great slabs of it per day, to fulfil some imaginary dietary need.

I love meat but won't kid myself I need to eat half a chicken because I spent 30 minutes in the gym.

 

[BabyLion]

I love meat but won't kid myself I need to eat half a chicken because I spent 30 minutes in the gym.

Funny!

I also love meat, and have issues with how animals that i eat are treated. My view on it, flawed as it may be is that me making a choice not to eat meat (that i enjoy eating) will in no way change the treatment of these animals. That chicken is going to be in the package no matter if I eat it or not.

 

[Piscivore]

Every once in a while, when I'm petting my cats, I think "These animals are going to die someday. It would be a shame to let this fine fur go to waste," and wonder if that's why people name their cats "Mittens".

I'm glad I'm not the only one. Our cat Titus has the softest, supplest fur I've ever felt. I'm almost sorry we had him fixed.

 

[RelativeSpace]

My view on it, flawed as it may be

Did you just admit to willful ignorance and an irrational worldview held for emotional convenience?

is that me making a choice not to eat meat (that i enjoy eating) will in no way change the treatment of these animals. That chicken is going to be in the package no matter if I eat it or not.

That's nonsense. Supply and demand. Very, very basic economics.

That kind of logic only applies to "meagans" who literally dig the meat out of the garbage.

 

[Piscivore]

As long as there are health and quality standards, I'm cool with eating any non-human animal. I get that people make distinctions based on socialization and such but until an animal comes along that can give a well-informed analysis of an Adam Sandler movie script, I consider all of them fair game.

My cat coughed up a hairball when the "Jack and Jill" trailer came on, does that count?

 

[Piscivore]

We can hope. Ever been to the zoo? The things that make it stinky are the animals.

Yes, but not the ones in the exhibits.

 

[angrysoba]

Mr Lucas: Yours is past the sell-by date.

Mr Humphries: I'm free!

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

The bottom line is whether or not it's acceptable to impose moral restrictions upon a society where not all members of that society agree with having moral restrictions placed on them.

This is an interesting side-track but pretty much off topic of the thread. In a nutshell I would address your final point by saying that at the point we embrace the imposition of moral restrictions because it is convenient or expedient for society I believe we lose the ability say we do so for moral reasons.

Or in other words, we might have rules that work but not necessarily rules that are right.

Back to the delicious mutts and moggies now...

 

[RelativeSpace]

This is an interesting side-track but pretty much off topic of the thread.

The topic is legislating morality inconsistently on X subject vs. not legislating it at all.

Much of the root of the question comes down to whether we should be legislating morality at all- which seems to be a stand most posters are taking?

In a nutshell I would address your final point by saying that at the point we embrace the imposition of moral restrictions because it is convenient or expedient for society I believe we lose the ability say we do so for moral reasons.

That's probably fair to say... but I'm not sure that addresses the point.

Do you think there's value in legislating morality (at least where it is mildly inconvenient, so we can claim the attempt is legitimate concern for morality)?

(I think this does speak to the issue of the original topic)

 

[Nihilianth]

*is easily flattered, makes kitteh noises*

Health? I thought you were talking about nature for a second.

I once heard a vegetarian say they don't do it for their health, but for animal's health instead. Very silly kind of thinking if you ask me. And doesn't she know you can't be healthy on a vegan diet, its been proven impossible by science. All decisions about my health are inherently one-sided, doesn't matter what happens on the other side so long as I'm looking out for number one.

Heh, you're pretty good at sarcasm, I see.

Vegan athletes, are they some kind of mythical creature? Besides, I completely agree, all decisions about what I want to do are so naturally one-sided, its completely unfair to ask people to change my lifestyle just because it hurts lots and lots of people or animals. Don't tell me cocoa collected by backbreaking slave labor doesn't taste the sweetest, and I won't tell you a hundred lifetimes of animals being confined for slaughter isn't worth a totally sweet sixpack.

I never said "vegan athletes are some kind of mythical creature." I said I don't have the spare cash to allow me to go vegan. Supplements are expensive. Produce is expensive. I can't get all the necessary calories from produce alone, without spending a small fortune.

I dunno what you are talking about with "slave labor." Most of the food I eat, come from local grocery chains where they have their own farms. Like Weis, Giant, and Wegman's. The brands of milk I consume are: Weis, Giant, or Great Valley (Wal-Mart I believe?) The animals I eat are all also American, the vast majority locally-raised. I don't eat much chocolate, but when I do, it's usually Hershey's chocolate (Hershey is just down the road from me. They obtain their cocoa from Brazil and Colombia. I think you need to cite evidence that they employ slave labor, and I will stop eating chocolate altogether starting from the moment you provide said evidence. Sorry, but not really holding my breath.)

However, you want to talk about foods that are potentially "unethical" to eat? Produce! Yes, that's right: Produce. You know that a large amount of produce in this country are obtained through seasonal farming, employing quite a few illegal immigrants who are being paid maybe a dollar/day, right?

Most of the produce I consume is also locally-grown, but usually it's more expensive than produce that has been shipped from elsewhere. Again, I use the Weis, and Giant brands, since I trust them, and they are local. However, even locally-grown produce, the workers barely make minimum wage.

Not to mention, that produce has no way of defending itself. At least cows have teeth and hard hooves.

That, and the "appeal to nature" thing. Animals are just animals. I would never think it right to give them equal protection under the law as humans. Do they deserve some rights? Absolutely. So long as they are taken care of, and not abused. Other than that, they most definitely not the equals to humans.

 

[Nihilianth]

Houston Texans running back Arian Foster is vegan. Pretty sure an NFL running back works out alittle bit more than you.

I'm pretty sure an NFL running back also gets paid a little more than I do. And is provided with the most scientifically-advanced diet for an athlete from a highly-paid, and highly-trained nutritionist.

While I disagree with a good chunk of what Dessi has said, I'll disagree utterly with any claim that high activity levels require plenty of animal protein. It just ain't so. Typical humans require 40-70 gms protein per day, body-builders on an intensive schedule maybe 50% more. That amounts to 2-4 ounces of protein per day. About a decent chicken-thigh, or small steak? The rest gets burned for energy, laid down as fat or pissed down the toilet. Bottom line - there is only so much muscle rebuilding (etc) that you can provoke in a day's exercise. You burn a lot of cals while swimming? Eat a bowl of cornflakes then, and don't forget it contains milk protein

Meanwhile soya provides an excellent, balanced vegetable protein source, and all the bits of protein you'll get from beans, bread, spuds, rice, cheese etc etc etc all count.

Meat appeal is a whole different ball-game though, and I confess to being an addict.

I must confess, that I know next to nothing about the science behind dieting. I know food. I grew up in the restaurant business. I don;t know a whole lot about human anatomy. However, I do know my body. I once went a week on an all-veggie diet (lost a bet,) and I started feeling sick and dizzy after about three days. I was eating an aweful lot of salads. With ranch dressing.

Sorry, but I'm a foodie. I make awesomely delicious dinners. I can't survive off of vegetables. I don't feel right, and am tired more often, and my workouts are much less efficient.

 

[chainlink]

Although urban westerners might cringe at the thought of eating a household animal, it's a fairly common practice of many subsistence farmers around the world who practically live with the one or two chickens, ducks, or sheep they can afford.

I believe that if we were to outlaw all the taboo foods from every culture around the world, there might be nothing left to eat.

 

[Nihilianth]

They are cheaper to produce- but more expensive to distribute in small quantities and occupy shelf space with a low turnover. If more people bought them, economy of scale and competition would push the price down below that of meat very quickly.

Bit of a catch 22, maybe?

But you can buy the stuff direct and in bulk and save a lot of money. Search online for TVP or TSP. It's used in military rations, prisons, cafeterias, fast food, you name it. All you have to do is add water and flavour (any broth or spice mix will do) and it's like ground meat. Some places even have pre-flavoured stuff; beef, chicken, bacon, taco, etc.

*very* cheap. Couldn't be easier to prepare either. Just add water and wait a couple minutes. Doesn't even have to be hot water.

I went on 4-day hiking trip up in the Presidential Mt. Range in New Hampmshire at the beginning of this month. We stopped at a place in State College before heading out to load up on a bunch of that stuff you described. It wasn't nearly as terrible as I imagined it to be, but definitely something I literally couldn't survive off of.

I kinda have acid-reflux. After three days of eating that stuff, I started getting real sick. I was hungry, but I wasn't hungry. I nearly puked it back up when I tried forcing myself to eat, and had real bad heart burn.

Also, at 7 bucks per meal per person, not cheap! We had mac-and-cheese, lasagna, some pizza-flavored spicy noodly stuff that put me under....

No. Not good. Staying away from that crap.

 

[Nihilianth]

I can only suppose you mean final products like 'soy chili ready to heat+eat' and so on?. Basic dry soy mince is cheap as chips. But really the point was not about soy specifically, just the lack of any real need to eat meat, especially great slabs of it per day, to fulfil some imaginary dietary need.

I love meat but won't kid myself I need to eat half a chicken because I spent 30 minutes in the gym.

Who said anything about eating half a chicken, or "great slabs of meat!?"

 

[Dessi]

I dunno what you are talking about with "slave labor." Most of the food I eat, come from local grocery chains where they have their own farms. Like Weis, Giant, and Wegman's. The brands of milk I consume are: Weis, Giant, or Great Valley (Wal-Mart I believe?) The animals I eat are all also American, the vast majority locally-raised. I don't eat much chocolate, but when I do, it's usually Hershey's chocolate (Hershey is just down the road from me. They obtain their cocoa from Brazil and Colombia. I think you need to cite evidence that they employ slave labor, and I will stop eating chocolate altogether starting from the moment you provide said evidence. Sorry, but not really holding my breath.)

Re: chocolate and slavery, see fair trade cocoa thread, basically one long "ha ha only serious" take on how people would talk about child slavery if we approached it with the same rational, compassionate arguments people use against animal rights.

Not to mention, that produce has no way of defending itself. At least cows have teeth and hard hooves.

?

That, and the "appeal to nature" thing. Animals are just animals.

Do you remember that scene in Huck Finn where Huck comments about steam boat which blew a cylinder head, Aunt Sally asks:

Aunt Sally: "Good gracious! anybody hurt?"

Huck: "No ma'am. Just a couple of ********."

Aunt Sally: "Well, it's lucky; because sometimes people do get hurt."​

I would never think it right to give them equal protection under the law as humans. Do they deserve some rights? Absolutely. So long as they are taken care of, and not abused. Other than that, they most definitely not the equals to humans.

I couldn't agree more, Aunt Sally.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 10.