eating dogs / sex with animals - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-18-2002, 10:26 AM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 06:32 PM
I don't eat dogs or cats myself, but there can't be anything wrong with it. Just because we think they are "cute" does not make them any more deserving of life than an "ugly" pig or cow. I love my pets, and of course I'd never slaughter them and consume them. But I've also lived in Indonesia, and there are parts of the country there where dog-meat is quite a legitimate source of food and who am I to say that they are "evil" or "wrong" for that? It's a cultural thing. Oh and btw, I used to have a pet chicken. She was "cute" to me. But I'm sure she would have tasted just like any other chicken.
__________________

__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 12:40 PM   #17
Blue Crack Distributor
 
LarryMullen's POPAngel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: I'll be up with the sun, I'm not coming down...
Posts: 53,698
Local Time: 06:32 PM
Ew.

------------------
Cut out the poetry
Let's hit the main artery
No time for a tourniquet
Let the colour's all run out of me
__________________

__________________
LarryMullen's POPAngel is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 01:19 PM   #18
Banned
 
Miss MacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Planet Pleba
Posts: 1,957
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Gee, i guess no one can come up with a rational argument on the question i posed, so i'd better highlight it,sigh:
If it is merely a cultural thing, then why, pray tell, can one not eat humans? Can we go around and slaughter each other and put our neighbors on the table??/I mean, hey, if its "part of my culture" then i must be allowed to do whatever i want, 'eh?? And yes, some cultures DO eat humans.
I personally wouldnt eat my neighbors, because they are disgusting sick people, but hey, i cant speak for everyone... RIIIIIGHT? Legalize cannibalism!! Solve the overpopulation problem at long last!




[This message has been edited by Miss MacPhisto (edited 01-18-2002).]
__________________
Miss MacPhisto is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 01:26 PM   #19
Banned
 
Miss MacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Planet Pleba
Posts: 1,957
Local Time: 03:32 PM
In some countries, it is "Part of their culture" to beat women, shoot women if they look at another man, cut off someones hands for stealing, own slaves, condone suicide bombings, abuse children, yada yada yada. So...shall we turn the other cheek and shrug our shoulders and say "Who am i to tell them what they can and cannot do?? Its "part of their culture", after all!!!"
SOME CRIMES ARE UNIVERSALLY WRONG, and the PEOPLE MUST BE TREATED LIKE THE CRIMINALS THEY ARE

------------------
Look...look what you've done to me...You've made me poor and infamous, and I thank you...

My name is MISS MACPHISTO...I'm tired and i want to go HOME...

"Well you tell...Bonovista,that i said hello and that my codename is Belleview" - Bono before opening night of Anaheim Elevation concert

Well tonight thank God it's them, instead of you...
__________________
Miss MacPhisto is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 01:29 PM   #20
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Miss MacPhisto, I was not aware that your question deserved an answer, but anyway...

Cannibalism can not in any way be related to any of this simply because eating dogs is not like eating humans, as in... dogs aren't humans and therefore the act itself does not constitute cannibalism. Its very stupid, but then again, the question was rather stupid as well. Also, it wouldn't be practical, healthy or even moral to eat humans.

Cows and chickens are killed in order for the flesh to be edible and disease-free, but simply EATING dead animals that have been killed off by disease or old age would NOT be healthy, hence the need to kill them. Therefore, the only way to eat a human is to kill them, which would constitute as immoral; killing people off to eat them? These are people, we are talking about, and not barn animals, and I'm sorry but they are not equal. Here in the UK it is pityful to see people treat their pets as humans if not better, there are some who consider their pets to be more important and even better than humans, which is tragically sad. I hate to be the one to point the obvious, but animals are NOT humans and therefore killing a dog is NOT the same as killing a human, and hence does not involve the same moral and immoral implications.

How can you possibly correlate eating dogs with cannibalism? That's my question.

Ant.
__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 01:38 PM   #21
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Again, there is a huge leap of logic and reason in your argument, beating women to death in countries has nothing to do with eating animals! For one thing, they are not the same objects, humans and animals, and for another thing they are NOT the same bleeding subjects; beating innocents and eating!

If the comparison was between beating innocent women in come countries and beating animals in others, yes, I could conceive of your comparison, however, they are TWO COMPLETELY different things! The beating of an innocent woman is not the same as killing an animal in order to feed on them, they are different actions and different parties.

Again, I ask you; how the hell can you make such a correlation?

And yes, I agree with you that some things are universally wrong, one of them being the way people think they can condem anything they find offensive in the name of morality.

Ant.
__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 01:44 PM   #22
Banned
 
Miss MacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Planet Pleba
Posts: 1,957
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Well, if its not ok to eat humans merely because humans are different than dogs and cats, then it is NOT ok to eat dogs and cats, because they are not COWS!!!!!!!!!
And you are not God(i know you believe differently) and you have no right to say who is, and who isnt "above" another. Animals ARE superior to himans in many ways, and humans are superior to animals in some ways. This balances out.
The only really inferior beings are evil humans - that is, those that hurt innocent people and animals intentionally.
__________________
Miss MacPhisto is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 01:48 PM   #23
Banned
 
Miss MacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Planet Pleba
Posts: 1,957
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Anthony:
Again, there is a huge leap of logic and reason in your argument, beating women to death in countries has nothing to do with eating animals! For one thing, they are not the same objects, humans and animals, and for another thing they are NOT the same bleeding subjects; beating innocents and eating!

If the comparison was between beating innocent women in come countries and beating animals in others, yes, I could conceive of your comparison, however, they are TWO COMPLETELY different things! The beating of an innocent woman is not the same as killing an animal in order to feed on them, they are different actions and different parties.

Again, I ask you; how the hell can you make such a correlation?
Ant.
You are missing my point entirely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUH!!!!!
My point is, just because something is acceptable in some cultures not not mean it is not immoral, evil, and not worthy of action to stop it and punish the guilty.
__________________
Miss MacPhisto is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 01:56 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
sulawesigirl4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,416
Local Time: 06:32 PM
so...let me get this straight. There are some people that believe that eating cows is wrong. If I'm not mistaken, they are left alone in some parts of India. What makes it ok for us to eat cows and call it right?
__________________
sulawesigirl4 is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 02:19 PM   #25
Banned
 
Miss MacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Planet Pleba
Posts: 1,957
Local Time: 03:32 PM
It isnt right. I dont eat cows either. Its worse to eat dogs and cats though, for several reasons which have already been discussed here.
Its sort of like 1st degree, 2nd degree,a nd 3rd degree murder: there are different levels, but it is still MURDER.

[This message has been edited by Miss MacPhisto (edited 01-18-2002).]
__________________
Miss MacPhisto is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 02:49 PM   #26
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Queen Lurker
Posts: 323
Local Time: 11:32 PM
I personally don't see why this thread has gotten so hostile.

So Miss MacPhisto, you're a vegetarian who holds animals in the highest regard. I presume this is a lifestyle for you, and I respect you for your decision to not eat meat because it goes against the grain or your morality. You have your reasons, and you stick to it adamantly. There is some respect that is to be had for someone who fights for what they believe in if they honestly feel what they are doing is for the greater good of humankind.

However I think your argument may be flawed. Nobody here is condoning the inhumane treatment of animals - either in life or slaughter. Nobody is condoning the consumption of human flesh... Cannibalism must be inherantly wrong, we all know that and nobody is arguing with you there. But then again it is practiced in maybe one or two cultures on the far reaches of the earth. Nevermind wackos like Jeffrey Dahmer who tortured and sexually mutilated his victims before eating them. Take any cultural anthropology course and you'll learn that cannibalism is not widespread, nor is it practiced day in and day out. It is more a spiritual ritual for these people to practice cannibalism once a year - to eat the flesh of the chief of a warring tribe. Are we to decide for these people that that is wrong? As far as cannibalism that involves cultures eating their own dead so as to "keep that dead person's spirit alive in its kin" that tradition has mostly been stopped after 1.) people eating the flesh of their dead relatives gave them severe health problems and 2.) anthopologists as well as doctors were sent into these areas to explain that (and stop people from) eating deceased people because it is contributing to the health problems in some of these areas. It's been a while since I've taken an anthropology course and I take with a grain of salt that such information may be skewed, but in general my point is, eating the flesh of animals cannot be compared to eating the flesh of humans.

We as a western culture as know the eating of human flesh to be inherently wrong. Also our current cultural dietary traits revolve, to some degree, around the Bible and ancient scriptures. There is a reason why pork was not to be consumed and this had little to do with pigs being 'filthy' or 'highly intelligent.' In early times, salt was worth more in it's weight than gold and precious stones. It was hard to come by. For pork to last in conditions where refridgeration hadn't even been invented yet, salt was the only way to preserve this meat. Without salt curing, eating pork was increibly dangerous and the consumption of spoilt meat led to many deaths. Obviously. Chock it up to history and/or heritage, the eating of pig flesh is still looked down upon because of tradition only. (even though my Jewish family enjoys a good ham sandwhich, shhh. don't tell the rabbi )

I agree a lot of animals are superior to humans in many ways. They take what they need from the earth unlike most humans. They don't overindulge in their eating habits. The animals in the wild kingdom that eat the flesh of other animals obviously do so because that is the way they survive. Unfortunately we do NOT know enough about the history of all mankind to presume that we are carnivorous, herbivorous, or both. Our teeth, our incisors to be precise, indicate that our ancestors fron long ago used those teeth to tear the flesh from the bone. Our molars indicate that our ancestors used those to chew what we take from plants and fruits - and to a degree, meat. Again, we don't know for certain whether or not we as humans are meant to be carnivorous or herbivorous, or both.

Now we can talk about ancestry. I think our current diets (excluding Big Macs and Whoppers and such) date back to wherever our ancestors hailed from. If your ancestors hailed from areas where meat was in abundance but vegetables were not, it is very likely that our ancestral 'blueprints' (if you will) are genetically bound to us, that some of our bodies do indeed crave meat because we carry the blood of our ancestors. And vice versa for other people who have ancestors that hail from areas where meat is scarce and vegetables are a-plenty. Every single person on this planet is different, we all carry different genes, the rules of one diet do not apply to everybody.

Take an native Alaskan eskimo for example - vegetables and fruits are extremely scarce in the regions which they live, they get their main dietary needs from fish and seal and to a degree, whale meat. If tomorrow we marched in and said, OK, now you have to sustain yourself on fruits and vegetables from now on because killing animals for any reason is 'wrong' - those people would get extrememely sick, as their bodies are NOT able to process only fruits and vegetables because they have been eating meat for so long. Not to mention, harsh regions may not be suitable for growing food that sustains a vegetarian diet, and it's a given that importing foods from other countries is very costly. The harsh regions in Russia also get their dietary needs mainly from meat because fruit and vegetables are scarce. To impose our dietary beliefs on people that eat meat to live, or even eat meat because their body craves it, is quite unfair.

Now to wrap this up for now, I will pose a question that was posed to me. I did not know how to answer it to be honest. It was a well intentioned question not directed at me per se, but at vegetarians who find eating animals to be cruel and immoral. If animals are put on the same scale as a living being that deserve not to be eaten, why are they so above any other living organisms including that of a plant? Surely a plant is a living organism - you pull a plant from the root and it's going to die. You pull fruit off the tree and that tree might feel some pain (there's actually been studies that indicate that plants may feel what we describe as 'pain.') We do not know for sure. Of course this is the argument fruitarians (who only eat fruits and nuts that fall off the tree) use but the jist of the original question is... are we humans to dictate what should and should not be eaten? Is it our moral right to do so?

*that was sure long and damn near nonsensical of me*

__________________
adam's_mistress is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 04:43 PM   #27
Banned
 
Miss MacPhisto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Planet Pleba
Posts: 1,957
Local Time: 03:32 PM
Well, personally, i draw the line at the existence of a heart. if it has a beating heart, it is evolved enough to warrant humane treatment and respect for its life. (I've argued this on the topic of abortion as well. You can no longer call it a blob of tissue if it has advanced to the point where it has a beating heart)
Plants and such do not and obviously, we have to eat them to survive. Though of course, we still have to have respect for them and not destroy any of them unnecessarily. I live in an area with few plants and trees, so i know what it's like to live in a place where few give a rats ass about the environment.
I am also not criticizing people who have no choice but to eat meat, or else die or become very sick. And i certainly am not condemning those who lived ages ago and also had no choice but to eat meat and wear fur, else theyd starve and freeze.
I dont think Jesus Christ had the option of dining at a veggie cuisine restaurant, and i dont think the Indians had the option of ordering from a Fabulous(faux)Furs catalog.
But the vast majority of people on earth DO have the choice now, perhaps not entirely, perhaps they cant go totally veggie, but they do have some options.
And anyway, there is no need for ANYONE on planet earth to eat dogs, cats, or horses. Except in extremely rare, extraordinary circumstances, such as if you were,uh, stranded in a barren wasteland with no sign of life for many miles except for a dog...well then, maybe. But how often does that happen?

[This message has been edited by Miss MacPhisto (edited 01-18-2002).]
__________________
Miss MacPhisto is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 04:53 PM   #28
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Adam's_mistress, you said it wonderfully when you questioned the basis on what we consider suitable enough to pass moral judgement, who ARE we to make any moral judgements? Nothing.

And no, Miss MacPhisto, there is no need to make cheap shots at the size of my ego, that is my own particular problem... can I help it if I'm so perfect it pains you? I don't think I am God, all I'm saying is that neither YOU or ME can pass judgement on what is wrong or right in this case, who are we to consider what is superior and inferior? When I asked 'who are YOU to say its right or wrong', what I meant to say was 'who are WE'? Why apply a moral standard to something as simple as nutrition?

I just don't understand why you have to feel so strongly towards something so mundane; I can reciprocate all your feelings concerning the evils of sexism, cannibalism, exploitation and whateverism, however; food is food. And what one culture considers valid as food another one will disagree, who are we to pass jusdgement on it?

Ant.
__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 04:55 PM   #29
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Adam's_mistress, you said it wonderfully when you questioned the basis on what we consider suitable enough to pass moral judgement, who ARE we to make any moral judgements? Nothing.

And no, Miss MacPhisto, there is no need to make cheap shots at the size of my ego, that is my own particular problem... can I help it if I'm so perfect it pains you? I don't think I am God (however, I'm not so sure you're completely absolved yourself of that notion), all I'm saying is that neither YOU nor ME can pass judgement on what is wrong or right in this case, who are we to consider what is superior and inferior? When I asked 'who are YOU to say its right or wrong', what I meant to say was 'who are WE'? Why apply a moral standard to something as simple as nutrition?

I just don't understand why you have to feel so strongly towards something so mundane; I can reciprocate all your feelings concerning the evils of sexism, cannibalism, exploitation and whateverism, however; food is food. And what one culture considers valid as food another one will disagree, who are we to pass jusdgement on it?

Ant.
__________________
Anthony is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 04:59 PM   #30
Refugee
 
Anthony's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 11:32 PM
Miss MacPhisto;

Of course Jesus Christ had a choice, he was the incarnation of God and therefore all-knowing. I think they had vegetable alternatives back then as well as lamb and other meat sources, so if he did have a problem with it he would have declined from it, therefore, I'm pretty sure he had a choice.

Ant.
__________________

__________________
Anthony is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com