Unpopular Opinions.

kunst nugget

Kev W wrote: »

The problem is that people (on both sides of the argument) want to reduce it to meat eaters vs. vegetarians/vegans when it's the treatment of the animal when it's alive that's the actual issue.

Tell me how factory farmed animals are treated better than the dogs.

kunst nugget

jobbridge4life wrote: »

My initial argument and the quoted was in response to your own about dogs being animals and that being enough to prove your point. It wasn't a statement on the rightness or otherwise of eating dogs as I explicitly said in subsequent posts. In addition you are misrepresenting and overly simplifying what I said. We didn't make them our pets, we domesticated them and utilized them millennia before such a notion exists they are our pets as a consequence.

And what difference does that make to whether people in China eat them?

jobbridge4life

kunst nugget wrote: »

Tell me how factory farmed animals are treated better than the dogs.

You the one who made the positive assertion that factory farming was worse so it falls to you to explain how the dogs involved are treated better than factory farmed animals.

jobbridge4life

kunst nugget wrote: »

And what difference does that make to whether people in China eat them?

...stop saying 'people in China' as though it was remotely mainstream to eat dogs in china. It isn't.

It makes a difference because the premise of your original argument was flawed.

kunst nugget

jobbridge4life wrote: »

...stop saying 'people in China' as though it was remotely mainstream to eat dogs in china. It isn't.

Okay, some people in China…

jobbridge4life wrote: »

It makes a difference because the premise of your original argument was flawed.

How?

jobbridge4life

kunst nugget wrote: »

Okay, some people in China…



How?

Because not all animals are the same, and the mere fact that something is animal is not sufficient justification for whether it ought to be consumed by humans for nutrition.

IvyTheTerrible

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Because not all animals are the same, and the mere fact that something is animal is not sufficient justification for whether it ought to be consumed by humans for nutrition.

But who decides which animals should be consumed?

jobbridge4life

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

But who decides which animals should be consumed?

Individual governments if they are bothered I suppose or broader society in the same way it establishes social mores and taboos generally.

kunst nugget

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Because not all animals are the same, and the mere fact that something is animal is not sufficient justification for whether it ought to be consumed by humans for nutrition.

I'm sorry but it's your argument that is flawed - all animals are the same and it is only cultural and societal taboos that determine what we deem acceptable to eat. Rats and horses are not never served here as food but are perfectly acceptable in other countries.

jobbridge4life

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm sorry but it's your argument that is flawed - all animals are the same and it is only cultural and societal taboos that determine what we deem acceptable to eat. Rats and horses are not never served here as food but are perfectly acceptable in other countries.

No factually speaking they are not. So you are just plainly wrong on that one. Of course you are still entitled to believe that regardless of the differences that exist we should be entitled to eat all animals but that does not negate the differences.

One eyed Jack

jobbridge4life wrote: »

No factually speaking they are not. So you are just plainly wrong on that one. Of course you are still entitled to believe that regardless of the differences that exist we should be entitled to eat all animals but that does not negate the differences.

I can't wait to hear your explanation for the differences between animals, that aren't simply a social construct.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I think my initial point, that people mainly care because dogs are the ones being eaten and not because of the cruelty involved, has been proven by the posts that followed.

Kev W

Beer tastes horrible.

kunst nugget

jobbridge4life wrote: »

No factually speaking they are not. So you are just plainly wrong on that one. Of course you are still entitled to believe that regardless of the differences that exist we should be entitled to eat all animals but that does not negate the differences.

I'm not talking about all animals being the same when it comes to genera but in terms of our ability as humans to be able to consume them - there are, of course, some minor exceptions to this like a polar bear's liver and several species of fish which are poisonous. In that regard, dogs are no different to cows, pigs, horses or rabbits.

jobbridge4life

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can't wait to hear your explanation for the differences between animals, that aren't simply a social construct.

The very concept of animal is a social construct but how and ever.
Intelligence is a factor, we have movements to grant legal personhood to chimps and other high level primates I've yet to see anyone attempt that with a cow or dog for that matter.

kunst nugget

jobbridge4life wrote: »

The very concept of animal is a social construct but how and ever.
Intelligence is a factor, we have movements to grant legal personhood to chimps and other high level primates I've yet to see anyone attempt that with a cow or dog for that matter.

So we're good to eat dogs and cows just leave chimps alone?

jobbridge4life

Kev W wrote: »

Beer tastes horrible.

Foul disgusting swill. Forget dogs and factory farms its beer that really needs to go.

jobbridge4life

kunst nugget wrote: »

So we're good to eat dogs and cows just leave chimps alone?

With respect you appear to have a real problem confining yourself to what I have actually said.

kunst nugget

jobbridge4life wrote: »

With respect you appear to have a real problem confining yourself to what I have actually said.

To be fair, it's because I still haven't got a good reason off you why some people in China shouldn't eat dogs…

Good article about it in the Guardian…

Is It Okay To Eat Dogs?

jobbridge4life

kunst nugget wrote: »

To be fair, it's because I still haven't got a good reason off you why some people in China shouldn't eat dogs…

Good article about it in the Guardian…

Is It Okay To Eat Dogs?

But I haven't set out to make that case...

kunst nugget

jobbridge4life wrote: »

But I haven't set out to make that case...

Sigh, then what point are you trying to make?

jobbridge4life

kunst nugget wrote: »

Sigh, then what point are you trying to make?

That your repeated claim that 'animals are animals' was false and in fairness to you have subsequently backtracked from it. That just because something is an animal doesn't mean it is automatically right to eat it.

kunst nugget

jobbridge4life wrote: »

That your repeated claim that 'animals are animals' was false and in fairness to you have subsequently backtracked from it. That just because something is an animal doesn't mean it is automatically right to eat it.

I backtracked on it?

Kev W

Guinness is muck.

jobbridge4life

Yeah backtracked.

kunst nugget wrote: »

They're all animals, we just choose to designate dogs as pets and 'man's best friend' in this part of the world and so it's not socially acceptable to fry up Spot or Rover.

kunst nugget wrote: »

Cows are sacred in India. Doesn't stop me enjoying a fillet steak. Is it not hypocrisy to bemoan the killing in a different country of an animal I consider special above other animals when I'm doing exactly the same when I chow down on Daisy the Cow.

kunst nugget wrote: »

They are animals, if you kill them, you can eat the meat off their bones. We just attach cultural significance to one over the other. That's it.

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm sorry but it's your argument that is flawed - all animals are the same and it is only cultural and societal taboos that determine what we deem acceptable to eat. Rats and horses are not never served here as food but are perfectly acceptable in other countries.

and then...

kunst nugget wrote: »

I'm not talking about all animals being the same when it comes to genera but in terms of our ability as humans to be able to consume them - there are, of course, some minor exceptions to this like a polar bear's liver and several species of fish which are poisonous. In that regard, dogs are no different to cows, pigs, horses or rabbits.

kunst nugget

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Yeah backtracked.

and then...

Ah, you're incapable of basic comprehension - I was talking in terms of subgroupings and biological genera (that was important word in that sentence) - but I stated that they were all the same in terms of us being able to eat them.

jobbridge4life

kunst nugget wrote: »

Ah, you're incapable of basic comprehension - I was talking in terms of subgroupings and biological genera (that was important word in that sentence) - but I stated that they were all the same in terms of us being able to eat them.

I can assure you I am not and insulting me doesn't make your argument any more compelling so I would appreciate it if you could desist.

No you didn't as I have already illustrated you repeatedly made the argument that all animals were the same until it became untenable and then you introduced the qualification and not the other war round.

Kev W

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I can assure you I am not and insulting me doesn't make your argument any more compelling so I would appreciate it if you could desist.

No you didn't as I have already illustrated you repeatedly made the argument that all animals were the same until it became untenable and then you introduced the qualification and not the other war round.

It seems that the qualification was only to state that there are certain types of animal meat that are not safe for human consumption. that's not backtracking, that's just going into detail.

One eyed Jack

jobbridge4life wrote: »

The very concept of animal is a social construct but how and ever.
Intelligence is a factor, we have movements to grant legal personhood to chimps and other high level primates I've yet to see anyone attempt that with a cow or dog for that matter.

Have chimps been granted personhood? No, so that movement isn't making any movement, and won't any time soon. The only thing that separates human beings from animals is that we're at the pinnacle of the food chain, and anything below that is fair game depending upon whatever part of the world you're in, whether it be eating monkey brains in Saudi, chicken in Kentucky, or dogs in China.

While we're on the subject, I recommend you steer clear of the "Spare Rib Soup" the next time you visit China -


EDIT: Actually I'll just remove that link altogether, people are probably just after their lunch.

kunst nugget

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I can assure you I am not and insulting me doesn't make your argument any more compelling so I would appreciate it if you could desist.

No you didn't as I have already illustrated you repeatedly made the argument that all animals were the same until it became untenable and then you introduced the qualification and not the other war round.

My argument is that all animals can be eaten, with the caveat of a couple of poisonous fish, and so are all the same in terms of human consumption - it's only our taboos or cultural sensitivities that determine what we think is acceptable to eat. That has been my argument from the start and remains my argument.

Into The Blue

Arguing over each others unpopular opinions?

#boardslogic

The Corinthian

jobbridge4life wrote: »

The very concept of animal is a social construct but how and ever.

Are the concepts of vegetable and mineral also social constructs?

Decuc500

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I think my initial point, that people mainly care because dogs are the ones being eaten and not because of the cruelty involved, has been proven by the posts that followed.

I certainly have a problem with both!

jobbridge4life

The Corinthian wrote: »

Are the concepts of vegetable and mineral also social constructs?

In relation to vegetables yes... whats a tomato again?

Into The Blue

jobbridge4life wrote: »

whats a tomato again?

Knowledge v wisdom??

Into The Blue

Kev W wrote: »

Guinness is muck.

Yes, such sweet, sweet muck..
Now off to the off licence!!!

The Corinthian

jobbridge4life wrote: »

In relation to vegetables yes... whats a tomato again?

Not an animal nor mineral.

MRnotlob606

"Comes here to see unpopular opinions"

jobbridge4life

Kev W wrote: »

It seems that the qualification was only to state that there are certain types of animal meat that are not safe for human consumption. that's not backtracking, that's just going into detail.

It is backtracking because the original positioning as articulated was all animals are the same. Subsequently that position becomes untenable so the response then becomes 'oh I didn't mean all animals are the same (in spite of explicitly stating it) I really meant all* animals are physically edible.' Which of course no one has ever disputed. No one was or is suggesting that dogs are physically inedible.

*with some limited exceptions.

on_my_oe

on_my_oe wrote: »

My Dads gotten up at 4am for the last 48 years, he's paid off his mortgage, manages one holiday every four years and drives a 10 year old car as he saved for his retirement. If they brought in a 100% inheritance tax, I'd tell him to go mad in the first five years of bring an OAP and then take off the government until he chokes.*

Where's he working?

Kev W

jobbridge4life wrote: »

It is backtracking because the original positioning as articulated was all animals are the same. Subsequently that position becomes untenable so the response then becomes 'oh I didn't mean all animals are the same (in spite of explicitly stating it) I really meant all* animals are physically edible.' Which of course no one has ever disputed. No one was or is suggesting that dogs are physically inedible.

*with some limited exceptions.

I think you're being disingenuous here. You've taken the idea of "all animals are the same" too literally. The poster was clearly stating that there is no practical difference between eating cow meat, dog meat, pig meat or the meat of any other animal, except for the fact that we consider some animals to be pets and some food, with little crossover between the two (rabbits, for example).

kunst nugget

Kev W wrote: »

I think you're being disingenuous here. You've taken the idea of "all animals are the same" too literally. The poster was clearly stating that there is no practical difference between eating cow meat, dog meat, pig meat or the meat of any other animal, except for the fact that we consider some animals to be pets and some food, with little crossover between the two (rabbits, for example).

Cheers, at least someone understood where I was coming from.

sbsquarepants

jobbridge4life wrote: »

In relation to vegetables yes... whats a tomato again?

Take a look in your fridge, if you see something that looks like a big green spider sitting on a snooker ball, odds are that's a tomato.
The acid test is to pick it up and bite it - if it bites you back or breaks your teeth then it actually is a spider on a snooker ball, if you can eat it no problem, it's a tomato:D

stephenl15

Sergio Ramos is horribly underrated and is in fact a world class defender. All I ever hear is about how overrated and rash he is.

jobbridge4life

Kev W wrote: »

I think you're being disingenuous here. You've taken the idea of "all animals are the same" too literally. The poster was clearly stating that there is no practical difference between eating cow meat, dog meat, pig meat or the meat of any other animal, except for the fact that we consider some animals to be pets and some food, with little crossover between the two (rabbits, for example).

Either I am being disingenuous or I was taking it too literally, so are you insulting me or saying I was mistaken?

The poster clearly, in his own words wrote that there was no difference between a cow and a dog, there is (that is not a comment on whether that difference is justification for differing attitudes to whether they should be treated different with regard to eating them). He said all animals are the same, they are not. When I explicitly stated that animals were different he immediately and explicitly told me my logic was flawed and again that all animals are the same. Then he decided to refine his point to their edibility. Perhaps that was always what he intended but it is not what he wrote and I'm not using my psychic powers for something as trivial as a boards discussion debating the consumption of dogs.

My only point was and is not all animals are the same and the mere fact that something is animal is not justification for eating it. We don't eat chimpanzees and I don't think anyone here wants to make the argument that we should or that to do so is the exact same as eating a chicken. Part of the reason is that we recognise their intelligence.

Kev W

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Either I am being disingenuous or I was taking it too literally,

I believe you were doing both. Disingenuously taking the poster literally.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

so are you insulting me or saying I was mistaken?

Neither, I believe you were intentionally misrepresenting another poster's viewpoint for an easy "win".

jobbridge4life wrote: »

The poster clearly, in his own words wrote that there was no difference between a cow and a dog, there is (that is not a comment on whether that difference is justification for differing attitudes to whether they should be treated different with regard to eating them). He said all animals are the same, they are not. When I explicitly stated that animals were different he immediately and explicitly told me my logic was flawed and again that all animals are the same. Then he decided to refine his point to their edibility. Perhaps that was always what he intended but it is not what he wrote and I'm not using my psychic powers for something as trivial as a boards discussion debating the consumption of dogs.

My only point was and is not all animals are the same and the mere fact that something is animal is not justification for eating it.

I'm not going to repeat myself.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

We don't eat chimpanzees and I don't think anyone here wants to make the argument that we should or that to do so is the exact same as eating a chicken.

Correct, nobody is making that argument. You can stop bringing it up now. Part of the reason is that we recognise their intelligence.

jobbridge4life

Kev W wrote: »

I believe you were doing both. Disingenuously taking the poster literally.



Neither, I believe you were intentionally misrepresenting another poster's viewpoint for an easy "win".



I'm not going to repeat myself.



Correct, nobody is making that argument. You can stop bringing it up now. Part of the reason is that we recognise their intelligence.

Firstly cheers for the insult. Secondly I haven't misrepresented a single thing said, I quoted in context verbatim what was said and in order as it was said. Thirdly actually its been repeatedly stated that all animals are animals, then that the real relevant difference was edibility. Thats bullsh@t chimpanzees are edible (afaik). And as for the notion of an easy win, with all due respect get real, I've been making my point over several pages by myself and have repeatedly have things I didn't suggest or say attributed to me so there is no 'easy win' here.

Kev W

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Firstly cheers for the insult.

What insult?

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Secondly I haven't misrepresented a single thing said,

I never said you did. You misrepresented what Kunst Nugget said.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

I quoted in context verbatim what was said and in order as it was said.

Hence "taking it literally". As a boy after being annoyed by my liitle brotherI told him, verbatim;"I'm going to kill you". Did I literally intend fratricide, in your opinion? Or was it a figure of speech, like saying "all animals are the same"? By your apparent logic Kunst Nugget was saying that a cow and a dog are actually the same animal, yet nobody seems to think they said that.

jobbridge4life wrote: »

Thirdly actually its been repeatedly stated that all animals are animals, then that the real relevant difference was edibility. Thats bullsh@t chimpanzees are edible (afaik).

Is it factually bull**** or only as far as you know?

jobbridge4life

Kev W wrote: »

What insult?


I never said you did. You misrepresented what Kunst Nugget said.



Hence "taking it literally". As a boy after being annoyed by my liitle brotherI told him, verbatim;"I'm going to kill you". Did I literally intend fratricide, in your opinion? Or was it a figure of speech, like saying "all animals are the same"? By your apparent logic Kunst Nugget was saying that a cow and a dog are actually the same animal, yet nobody seems to think they said that.



Is it factually bull**** or only as far as you know?

To accuse someone of being disingenuous is an insult. Point out exactly where I misrepresented what Kunst said? Just one actual example if you are going to make that accusation. And don't suggest that taking his words exactly as he said them and as his argument proceeded up until he introduced the qualification of edibility is misrepresenting anything.

Ye you literally intended to kill your brother but thanks to that patronising point I now understand sarcasm! Of course I didn't take Kunst to mean that they were the exact same animal and I didn't suggest it. I took it to mean exactly what he said and argued at that point that for the purposes of eating all animals are the same! And I argued against that and inexplicably despite Kunsts subsequent claim that he never meant it like that and that ultimately we were in accord, here we are several pages later and you've decided you know the inner workings of my mind.

Chimpanzees are edible. Maybe even tasty who knows we'll ask that portion of Africans who eat bushmeat.

One eyed Jack

jobbridge4life wrote: »

My only point was and is not all animals are the same and the mere fact that something is animal is not justification for eating it. We don't eat chimpanzees and I don't think anyone here wants to make the argument that we should or that to do so is the exact same as eating a chicken. Part of the reason is that we recognise their intelligence.

All animals are the same, including humans, but because humans are at the pinnacle of the food chain, we treat the meat below us differently, depending upon cultural norms in whatever part of the world you're in. We here in the Western world don't eat chimpanzees because chimpanzees aren't that common in this part of the world is one reason, but in Cameroon they're referred to as bushmeat, and the locals like their bushmeat. They also like their monkey brains.

I don't know where you get this idea that we differentiate between what animals we eat or don't eat based on their intelligence, they're pretty big on their whale and dolphin meat in Japan. When you're hungry enough, you'll eat anything, or indeed anyone, in spite of your moral sensitivities -

When Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571 crashed into the Andes on October 13, 1972, the survivors resorted to eating the deceased during their 72 days in the mountains. Their story was later recounted in the books Alive: The Story of the Andes Survivors and Miracle in the Andes as well as the film Alive, by Frank Marshall, and the documentaries Alive: 20 Years Later (1993) and Stranded: I've Come from a Plane that Crashed in the Mountains (2008).

Cannibalism was reported by the journalist Neil Davis during the South East Asian wars of the 1960s and 1970s. Davis reported that Cambodian troops ritually ate portions of the slain enemy, typically the liver. However he, and many refugees, also report that cannibalism was practiced non-ritually when there was no food to be found. This usually occurred when towns and villages were under Khmer Rouge control, and food was strictly rationed, leading to widespread starvation. Any civilian caught participating in cannibalism would have been immediately executed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism#Modern_era