eating dogs / sex with animals - 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 01-17-2002, 12:27 PM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: full of sound and fury
Posts: 3,386
Local Time: 03:15 AM
eating dogs / sex with animals

Wok the Dog - What's wrong with eating man's best friend? By William Saletan

Nine months ago, Frame Game grossed out its readers by tackling a mounting controversy in newspapers and state legislatures: the ethics of having sex with dogs. In that column, Frame Game asked "why, if it's wrong to rape animals, it's OK to kill them." Carnivores who ignored this question will now have to confront it. The biggest team sporting event on earth, soccer's World Cup, is coming to South Korea, where hot dogs and doggy bags are all too literal. Those of us who don't take our poodles with noodles will have to think about why, or whether, it's wrong to eat man's best friend.

In case you've been distracted by the war or the recession, here's where the dog fight stands. Dogs are eaten in much of Southeast Asia and part of Switzerland. The South Korean dog meat industry reportedly involves about 1 million dogs, 6,000 restaurants, and 10 percent of the population. French actress-turned-activist Brigitte Bardot, backed by thousands of rabid European and American letter writers, has enlisted FIFA, the world soccer federation, to pressure South Korea to shut down the industry. South Korean lawmakers, angered by this pressure, are pushing to legalize the industry next month. The industry, armed with supportive research by a scholar known as "Dr. Dogmeat," plans to set up dog-meat stands near World Cup stadiums and advertise recipes on English-language Web sites.

On Jan. 14, animal rights activists muzzled the industry's PR campaign kickoff. On Jan. 19, Korean hackers plan to attack the Web sites of French and American media companies that have disparaged canine Seoul food. The controversy has even invaded New York, where lawmakers are considering whether to ban dog meat (which is legal in 44 states) amid reports that it's being sold there. Editorials have expressed disgust at the practice, and Korean-Americans are assuring the public that they, too, find it barbaric. Everybody wants to show that he's civilized by condemning the eating of dogs. There's only one problem: Nobody can explain why it's wrong. In fact, on closer examination, the arguments against dog-eating turn out to be creepier than dog-eating itself.

Let's start with the clearest complaint: the needlessly cruel methods—beating, strangling, boiling—by which many dogs are killed in Korea. To Frame Game, this is a no-brainer. These methods have to be stopped. At a minimum, they should be replaced with electrocution, which is far more humane. That's why South Korean lawmakers are proposing to legalize, license, and regulate the industry. But guess who's trying to stop them? The same attack-dog activists who complain about the cruelty of the old methods.

Grilled dog meat

South Korea's Livestock Processing Act doesn't officially apply to dogs. The obvious solution is to classify dogs as livestock. But in 1999, legislators who tried to do that were thwarted by critics who warned that legalization would hurt the country's image. Now anti-dog-meat activists in Korea, Britain, Australia, and elsewhere are trying to block legalization again, arguing that "there is no recognized humane method of killing" dogs. As a spokesman for the Korea Animal Protection Society put it, "South Korean officials misunderstand the situation. They think it would be okay as long as dogs are not killed in a cruel manner." Given a choice between ending the cruelty and waging their all-out war till the last dog is hung, the activists choose the latter. FIFA, too, opposes legalization—at least until after the World Cup—and calls for a total end to dog-meat consumption.

To justify keeping the industry underground, unsafe, and inhumane, activists ought to have a pretty good reason why dog-eating—as opposed to the eating of other animals, which they tolerate—is too horrible to legalize. But what is that reason? Since dogs aren't smarter or more gentle than pigs, for example, anti-dog-meat activists argue that dogs are special because they're "pets" and "companion" animals. FIFA President Sepp Blatter calls them the "best friend of humankind." Dogs are "friends, not animals," Bardot told a Korean radio interviewer. "Cows are grown to be eaten, dogs are not. I accept that many people eat beef, but a cultured country does not allow its people to eat dogs."

Strip out Bardot's silly arrogance and her Korean colleagues' sentimentality, and their philosophy boils down to this: The value of an animal depends on how you treat it. If you befriend it, it's a friend. If you raise it for food, it's food. This relativism is more dangerous than the absolutism of vegetarians or even of thoughtful carnivores. You can abstain from meat because you believe that the mental capacity of animals is too close to that of humans. You can eat meat because you believe that it isn't. Either way, you're using a fixed standard. But if you refuse to eat only the meat of "companion" animals—chewing bacon, for example, while telling Koreans that they can't stew Dalmatians—you're saying that the morality of killing depends on habit or even whim.

The joke is on you because in Korea, until recently, dogs haven't been pets. Therefore, by the "companion" standard, it's OK to eat them. In fact, the "companion" standard is exactly what South Korean newspapers and government officials are using to justify an emerging system of dog Nazism. In the city, Koreans raise "pet dogs." In the country, they raise "meat dogs," also known as "junk dogs" and "lower-grade" dogs. But you don't become a "lower-grade" dog by flunking an IQ test. You're just born in the wrong place. Then you're slaughtered and fed to a man who thinks he's humane because he pampers a Golden Retriever that has half your brains. And Bardot, who says that cows can be butchered because they're "grown to be eaten," can't fault this arrangement.

If dog-eating isn't intrinsically wrong, why should South Koreans give it up? Because, Bardot told her radio interviewer, "Eating dog meat seriously hurts the image of your country." FIFA President Blatter likewise told South Korea that the practice was bad for its "international image." He urged the country "to show the world that it is sensitive to vociferous worldwide public opinion." But absent an underlying moral argument, appeals to "image" and "sensitivity" are as likely to disguise snobbery or evil as to promote good.

There's more than a whiff of cultural supremacy, if not racism, in French attacks on Korean dog-eating. When Bardot's radio interviewer told her that some Western visitors eat dog meat in Korea, she replied: "French people, German people, and Americans never eat dogs. If they did, it is most likely that South Koreans served them dog meat, saying it was either pork or beef." The French soccer team supports Bardot's campaign. A French state TV channel recently ridiculed Korean dog-eating in a piece full of distortions. Never mind that some Frenchmen eat horse meat or snails or that, according to a Seoul waitress, more than one staffer from the French Embassy has sated his canine tooth at her restaurant. Norwegians didn't stop eating reindeer during the 1994 Lillehammer Olympics. American restaurants didn't stop serving bull testicles during the 1996 Atlanta Olympics. No one forced Spain to outlaw cat stew during the 1982 World Cup, and no one is hounding Japan, the co-host of this year's World Cup, to shut down its sushi bars.

Fourteen years ago, when Seoul hosted the Summer Olympics, the dog-meat critics had their day. The South Korean government threw them a bone, banning dog meat under a law prohibiting "foods deemed unsightly." That's the law FIFA now wants South Korea to invoke to sweep away dog-meat restaurants during the World Cup. But unsightliness, by definition, is in the eye of the beholder, and beholders are motivated by prejudice as often as by justice. The last time organizers of a global sporting event removed an "unsightly" presence from their city, that presence was the homeless people of Atlanta. If FIFA and other carnivorous arbiters of civilization want to tell Koreans what to eat, they'll have to come up with a better reason than that.

I wouldn't eat dog meat but I thought this article had interesting arguments and clever doggie puns.


[This message has been edited by foray (edited 01-17-2002).]

foray is offline  
Old 01-17-2002, 12:31 PM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: full of sound and fury
Posts: 3,386
Local Time: 03:15 AM
Shag the Dog
By William Saletan

Years ago, advocates of sexual abstinence came up with a clever motto to instill chastity in youngsters. "Pet your dog, not your date," they preached. They may live to regret those words. The love that dare not bark its name is now a front-page topic, raised at White House news conferences and in state legislatures, thanks largely to philosopher Peter Singer. In an essay titled "Heavy Petting," Singer asks: What's wrong with fondling Fido? The essay, coupled with two scandals involving sex with dogs—one confirmed in Maine and the other alleged by investigators in California—has elicited cries of outrage and disgust. But the outcry has been largely thoughtless. It's easy to say that becoming more than friendly with man's best friend is wrong. What's hard is backing up that statement with a principle, and reconciling that principle with your beliefs about meat-eating, sexual orientation, or, in Singer's case, pedophilia.

Singer's essay tackles a series of objections to doggie-style intimacy. The first is that it's unnatural. If nature had wanted you to mate with your pet, the argument goes, you'd be able to procreate together. Singer points out, however, that we've come to tolerate other non-procreative practices, such as contraception, masturbation, oral gratification, and homosexuality. But isn't sex with animals a uniquely radical affront to tradition? Nope. Dog-bites-man is the oldest story around. Singer cites literary and anthropological evidence that humans throughout history have been attracted to animals—swans, horses, dogs, satyrs, calves—and some have acted on that attraction. OK, but aren't these acts cruel and harmful? Not necessarily, says Singer. "Sex with animals does not always involve cruelty."

So why the taboo? According to Singer, it's because we think we're intrinsically and categorically superior to other species. This is the dogma that Singer really wants to penetrate. "We are animals," he writes. "This does not make sex across the species barrier normal, or natural, whatever those much-misused words may mean, but it does imply that it ceases to be an offence to our status and dignity as human beings."

What's Wrong With Eating Dog?

Kaplan and Wright Discuss the War

What Paul O'Neill Doesn't Get About Capitalism

Conservative editorialists have doggedly denounced and ridiculed Singer's argument. None of them, however, has explained what's wrong with it. The answer matters, because the principle that makes sex with animals immoral—whatever that principle is—must apply to other issues as well. The Weekly Standard, for instance, faults Singer's nonchalant reaction to an incident in which a lusty, "powerful" orangutan seized a woman "like a drunken frat boy." Is the Standard saying that this incident amounts to a kind of sexual harassment? Is Singer a cad for tolerating it? Then why does the Standard publish articles brushing aside "hypersensitivity to 'harassment' and 'date rape' "?

Or take the Wall Street Journal editorial page. The Journal derides Singer for condoning puppy love while his animal rights buddies demand "intolerable paperwork" from researchers who use animals in lab experiments. But if we want rules about what's done to animals by their owners, why not make rules about what's done to them in labs? The same logic applies to mockery of Singer's vegetarianism. "You could say Singer's take on animal rights is: You can have sex with them, but don't eat them," jokes conservative columnist Debra Saunders. That's funny. But you could just as easily ask those of us who eat meat why, if it's wrong to rape animals, it's OK to kill them.

Liberals have a different problem. Most of them want to say that sex with your dog is wrong, but sex with a human of your own gender isn't. The trouble is, Singer explicitly connects the two practices (both are non-procreative), and people who advocate sex with animals—"zoophiles," as they prefer to be called—borrow the language of gay liberation. "I'm the first out-of-the-closet 'zoo' to be attacked because of my sexual orientation," Philip Buble, a zoophile, told the Bangor Daily News four months ago. Buble says the "relationship" between man and beast "can develop to be a sexual one." Testifying before a Maine legislative committee a week ago, Buble accused proponents of a ban on animal sexual abuse of trying "to force morality on a minority. It will be a disservice to zoo couples and would keep zoo couples from coming out of the closet and drive us deeper underground." Commenting on Dearest Pet, the book that inspired Singer's essay, other zoophiles articulate an "alternative sexual lifestyle" defined by "loving relationships with their animal lovers."

Then there's the case of the killer dogs in San Francisco. Last week, Marjorie Knoller and her husband, Robert Noel, were collared on manslaughter charges because two dogs in their care mauled to death their neighbor, Diane Whipple. Knoller and Noel, who are lawyers, claim they were taking care of the dogs on behalf of Paul "Cornfed" Schneider, a client whom they have adopted as their son while he serves a life sentence for attempted murder. According to a prison guard's affidavit, documents found in Schneider's possession include a photo of a male dog's genitals, "numerous photos of Knoller posing nude with fighting dog drawings," and a letter from the couple that discusses "sexual activity between Noel, Knoller and the dog" that subsequently killed Whipple. When the first vague report of the photos surfaced, Noel told the San Francisco Chronicle, "I'm not going to confirm it or deny it," adding, "There used to be a time when guy-on-guy or woman-on-woman relationships were looked at as unnatural acts. What concern is it to anybody if there is or isn't a personal relationship?"

The last thing liberals want is to see homosexuality equated with this kind of animal husbandry. While portraying Whipple and her lesbian partner as a loving couple, they dismiss the Noel-Knoller-Schneider-dog "family" as a twisted sham. But what makes one family real and the other fake? Is it monogamy? Fidelity? Commitment? Effort? A New Republic article suggests as much: "[A] fundamental reason for prohibiting sex with animals is the human desire to join sex [with love] and our recognition of the complexity of that joining, the care with which it must be nurtured and disciplined, the ease with which it is disrupted and led astray."

Strange as it may seem, however, it's hard to prove that Philip Buble doesn't nurture and discipline his love for the canine companion he calls "Lady Buble." He's a one-dog man. A month ago, when Buble's father was sentenced to jail for attacking him with a crowbar—in part out of disgust with Buble's "lifestyle"—Buble sent a formal request to the judge. "I'd like my significant other to attend by my side if possible as she was present in the house during the attack, though not an eyewitness to it, thank goodness," Buble wrote. "I've been informed your personal permission is needed given that my wife is not human." In his legislative testimony a week ago, Buble declared that he and Lady "live together as a married couple. In the eyes of God we are truly married."

Let's try another criterion. How about harm? Many animal rights activists say this is what's wrong with human-animal copulation, as opposed to gay sex. But that dog won't hunt, either. Singer points out that some sex acts between humans and animals "don't seem to do harm to animals." Is Buble harming the dog for whose emotional well-being he expressed such concern in his letter to the judge? Good luck proving it. In last week's testimony, Buble said zoophiles are born to care for animals. He denied that their physical interaction with their pets includes abuse. And he added that zoophiles do far less harm to animals than hunters, meat-eaters, and medical experiments do. It's hard to argue with that.

How about consent? Village Voice columnist Norah Vincent argues that homosexuality is permissible because "sexual acts between consenting adults should be beyond the prurient reach of the state." However,

When someone has sex with an animal, he foists himself on a creature that has the mental and emotional capacity of a child. Thus, it is no more capable than a child of giving meaningful consent. … f you have had sex with someone who is constitutionally incapable of giving anything that might constitute meaningful consent, you have committed rape. At the very least you have taken advantage of a creature over which you exercise considerable power.

Now we're onto something. The evidence that consent is morally essential—and that animals don't really give it—comes from zoophiles themselves. Dearest Pet reportedly suggests that many artistic images of male animals penetrating women are fantasies projected by men. The usual scenario, according to more reliable records cited in the book, is a man penetrating an animal for his own satisfaction. Singer essentially concedes his vulnerability on the consent issue by ducking it. He defends one scenario in which a dog tries to mount a human visitor's leg, and another in which an orangutan grabs a female attendant. Each scenario presumes the animal's initiative. Likewise, Buble goes through a dog-and-pony show to persuade people that his pet consents to their putative marriage. His letter to the judge included, next to his signature, a paw print purporting to represent the signature of "Lady Buble." But in forging his partner's consent, Buble screwed the pooch. Readers of the letter recognized that the paw print had been drawn by hand, and a Daily News reader discerned another discrediting detail: "I also noticed in the picture of Buble and his Lady that the Ms. wears a choke collar. A willing participant indeed."

So one mystery is solved. If you want to say that contraception, sodomy, and homosexuality are OK but sex with animals isn't, you can stipulate (as Slate's "Chatterbox" does) that sex is permissible only if both parties consent to it. This still leaves you with the problem of explaining why it's OK to kill and eat animals. But two other mysteries remain. One is Singer's position on consent. Does he think sex without consent is immoral? What mental capacities are necessary to give consent? Do animals have those capacities? Who else has those capacities? This line of questioning converges with the other mystery. "One by one, the taboos have fallen," Singer writes in his review of Dearest Pet, building up to the subject of zoophilia. The book's publisher calls sex with animals "the last taboo." But it can't be the last taboo, because there's another subject on which Singer, while freely discussing the charms and merits of zoophilia, seems strangely muzzled. The telling issue—the dog that didn't bark—is pedophilia.

A philosopher's duty is to clarify his principles and defend their consistent application. Those who embrace the principle of consent, and who agree that an animal "is no more capable than a child of giving meaningful consent," have done both. They have stated their principle and applied it to sex with children. What about Singer? He has often compared the mental ability of higher animals to that of children. Does he think this level of comprehension is sufficient to give consent to sex? If the answer is no, isn't zoophilia wrong? If the answer is yes, isn't pedophilia OK? Dog paddling, an old dog's new tricks, dog-eat-dog, a three-dog night—that's kid stuff. You want to take on a real taboo, Professor Singer? Stand up and be a man.

This one's just disturbing because it seems to be an issue (???)...


foray is offline  
Old 01-17-2002, 05:06 PM   #3
Miss MacPhisto's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Planet Pleba
Posts: 1,957
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Anyone that would intentionally eat dog, cat, or horse needs to be drug out into the street, beaten with a baseball bat then doused with lighter fluid and cremated alive.
People will debate anything, and eat anything. While we're at it,can we make a rational argument in favor of cannibalism, nazism, pedophilia, rape, slavery, and every other form of cruelty known to man? Some people actually believe blowing up the twin towers was a good thing. So should we allow thousands of people to be obliterated just cuz its acceptable in some cultures? Some things...are just universally wrong.
intentionally inflicting unnecessary suffering and/or death on any innocent lifeform with a beating heart is abhorrant and must be prevented to the best of our abilities. Unfortuately, it is currently impossible to weed out all of it...I mean, if we ban the slaughter of animals completely, what would we feed dogs and cats? They must eat meat, it is not their choice. But we can create laws and demand that the treatment of cattle, etc, be as humane as possible, that they be raised humanely, and that their slaughter be as painless as possible.
Dogs and cats are carnivores, not herbivores like cows. They arent meant to be eaten, havent been for thousands of years. In the wild, most mammals DO NOT eat other carnivores unless desperate.
Oh, and they dont go around raping each other either, unlike some demented, desperate humans.

[This message has been edited by Miss MacPhisto (edited 01-17-2002).]
Miss MacPhisto is offline  
Old 01-17-2002, 05:25 PM   #4
Anthony's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 02:15 PM
MissMacPhisto, what are you talking about?

You are comparing pedophilia, rape and slavery and not to mention the controversial nature of cannilabism to simple nutrition. In this day and age it is crucial to make the proper distinction between what is offensive to you and what IS immoral, you will find that the two don't always go hand in hand; just because a person finds something offensive doesn't mean that its immoral.

So what if cats and dogs are carnivores? Big deal, it doesn't change the fact that we eat meat the same way they eat meat; they still pray on flesh as do we. You can get all anal and talk about how fish eat other fish, how big fish eat small fish and small fish eat smaller fish, it doesn't change the fact that flesh is flesh. Just because Western culture has made the cat and the dog to be cute, furry and lovely domesticated animals doesn't mean they can't be made into food, for goodness sakes, in some countries they even eat locusts and cockroaches. SO WHAT? People still have to eat.

And another thing, what the hell are you going on about inflicting pain on animals? Are you talking about cows and pigs now or exclusively referring to cats and dogs? I'm sure if dogs were in high demand on our diet plan they would recieve the same treatment as any other animal in high demand, and thats not cleaning the slate clean; I happen to think that some animals in some countries are treated appalingly, but thats ALL
animals, not just the cat and dog.

So eating animals is abhorrent, is it? You wouldn't happen to be a vegetarian would you? My best friend is a vegetarian and I hate it when she gets all preachy about the 'evils' of eating animals, what bullshit. To all those who think that eating animals is immoral, watch 'THE LION KING', as it is a cartoon you'll probably understand it. Remember all that stuff about the 'great circle of life', yes indeed. Again, just because you find eating animals offensive to your own particular taste, doesn't mean that its immoral.

You can not compare the evils of pedophilia and nazism to simple nutrition and basic survival. We're already killing pigs and cows and countless of chickens and I don't see you complaining about them. In my opinion, its probably worse to kill innocent little chickens, I mean, they're so helpless and they don't have much of a life in their battery cells.

However, I do agree with you on one thing; the beating of someone to death. In my opinion, anyone who preaches about the evils of a natural diet should be taken out onto the street and beaten to death.


[This message has been edited by Anthony (edited 01-17-2002).]
Anthony is offline  
Old 01-17-2002, 05:43 PM   #5
Rock n' Roll Doggie
speedracer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: MD
Posts: 7,604
Local Time: 10:15 AM
I've said it before, but I think it needs to be said again:

Eat mo' possum. The Otha White Meat.
speedracer is offline  
Old 01-17-2002, 08:04 PM   #6
Miss MacPhisto's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Planet Pleba
Posts: 1,957
Local Time: 06:15 AM
Ok, so if its perfectly alright to kill anyone anytime we please, then it would be perfectly ok if i slaughtered and ate YOU merely because I have to eat????
If a person HAS to eat meat as you say, then why are there so many happy healthy vegetarians running around? Obviously, you do NOT have to eat meat of any kind.
And we are not talking about people who will CERTAINLY starve to death if they dont eat a dog. We are talking about losers who are simply too stupid to care about their own health let alone the well being of others.
I've said it before and I will say it again: Some things are universally wrong, and it makes little difference what your opinion is. The killing of wrong. In EVERY nation.

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...

[This message has been edited by Miss MacPhisto (edited 01-17-2002).]
Miss MacPhisto is offline  
Old 01-17-2002, 08:11 PM   #7
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Queen Lurker
Posts: 323
Local Time: 02:15 PM
I'm a vegetarian. I have been for almost 4 years now. I didn't become a vegetarian because I woke up one day and thought eating the flesh of an animal to be cruel. I made the decision for my health, and I consulted a physician. Since then I have more energy, I'm healthier, and I'm not brought down by fatigue after I eat a meal. But that's just me, and the rule does not apply to everyone else. The only thing I am sick of hearing is that since I'm a vegetarian then I must be ghastly and thin, and that I must suffer from anemia, or that I don't get enough vitamins. This is simply not the case with all vegetarians OR vegans, as many of us have found a way to balance our diet without taking vitmamins from meat.

Now... as far as how I feel about other people eating meat, I could care less what other people want to ingest. I ate meat at one time, my husband is as carnivorous as they come, and many people derive pleasure from eating a big juicy steak or buttered lobster. It is my belief that there is nothing immoral in eating the flesh of another animal, and I would never condemn someone for making the choice to eat the flesh of animals. And I would certainly not liken eating an animal to nazism, pedophilism, incest, rape, slavery, and other things we as a human society deem "immoral." To do so would be ridiculous, and I know I speak for many vegetarians.

In all honesty it does make me queasy to think of Fido on the dining room table, as I love dogs and would never have considered eating one. But that's just me. I cannot speak for other cultures that enjoy (or eat for sustainance) animals we consider pets. Surely as a western culture, eating canned food or frozen food or food packed with preservatives and dyes must be as disgusting to a 'foriegn' culture as it is for us to see other cultures dining on cats and dogs and horses. To each his own, I say.

One thing I would like to point out along with the above drivvel I just spewed, is that animals intended for food ought to be raised and slaughtered humanely. I never ate veal, and never knowingly ate anything where the animal lived and dies in deplorable conditions. Eating an animal may not be cruel per se, but condemning an animal to inhumane living and slaghtering conditions is outright cruel. Not to mention the environmental --->socioeconomic factors that go into producing meat that's suitable for human consumption. I would get into that more if I had time, but I don't. Maybe someone will do that for me, as I am about to actually have dinner right now.

adam's_mistress is offline  
Old 01-17-2002, 10:45 PM   #8
love, blood, life
Zoomerang96's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: canada
Posts: 13,461
Local Time: 09:15 AM
if people are afraid of christians "brainwashing" the "secular" crowd, then i hope that some of those people who beleive that is the case, arent a vegetarian shoving their views done our throats.

good thread foray. gee-ross but good.

-Balls McCone
-Cloyd (again)
-Box Bran-Delle
Zoomerang96 is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 12:53 AM   #9
War Child
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 02:15 PM
I ate cat once in Indonesia. I knew it didn't quite taste like chicken...
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 02:12 AM   #10
Anthony's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 02:15 PM
foray, what a marvellous collection of articles.

I have always believed that dogs would be put to one good use once eaten, and, though I would like very much to try the taste of Dog, I have never had the pleasure. Seriously, I would take the opportunity to eat dog had I the chance, its a culinary expereience I've always longed for.

As for copulating with one, well, there are some people with bizarre sexual tastes out there. Some people go for sadomasochism (which is not to my liking) and some people like young boys (again, not to my liking), however, as for bestiality I will never comprehend the attraction to it - I think it to be unnatural and immoral really. That surely must be cruelty to animals.

Eating dogs? Yum.
Shagging dogs? Yuck.

Anthony is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 02:18 AM   #11
Sizzlin' Sicilian
Forum Administrator
Sicy's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 69,317
Local Time: 07:15 AM

Sicy is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 02:27 AM   #12
Jesus Online
Angela Harlem's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 01:15 AM
That is absolutely disgusting.

I agree with the basics of what MissMac was trying to say. I dont believe in eating any animal that is domestic. I do eat regular meat like cow and sheep. But I have drawn the line at that. Society can adapt to many ideas in time, if we do allow the consumption of animals that we also have as pets, we will eventually become complacent with it. The difference with this is that cow and sheep are mainly used for food, it in itself may be objectionable, but they are in a slightly different category to dogs.

As for sex with animals, Im not touching that. Its a vile act and cannot be justified. Ever.

thanks fors for the post.
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 02:57 AM   #13
spinninghead77's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 2,392
Local Time: 10:15 AM
Very Interesting. Thanks for posting these. Since China won the Olympic bid, and there Human Rights issues have been brought to my attention I have been fascinated by the subject of "Dog as Food". At first it seemed barbaric to me, but as I read more articles my outlook changed. The eating of dog does not appeal to me, but why should the Western world decide what animals other countries should eat??

Gives you a hell of a lot to think about.

As for the "Beastiality" argument. I don't even feel that is worthy of a comment!!!
spinninghead77 is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 05:06 AM   #14
Klodomir's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Denmark
Posts: 1,198
Local Time: 03:15 PM
Well, I hate having to get into this ridiculous argument again, but I will say this: Miss McPhisto, the kind of aggressive nonsense you spew is exactly the kind of thing that makes people at vegetarians.
Originally posted by Miss MacPhisto:
Anyone that would intentionally eat dog, cat, or horse needs to be drug out into the street, beaten with a baseball bat then doused with lighter fluid and cremated alive.
Well, I've eaten horse. I didn't like the taste of it, but I don't regret it. So you feel sorry for the horse, who was killed in exactly the same way that a cow is, but you would do all of the above to me? What kind of a person are you?

As long as you're not eating anyone's pet, what's the problem? What's the difference between eating a horse and a cow? Horses are "intelligent" and "loyal" and "cute"? Give me a break!

Also, what's the deal with vegetarians who won't eat meat for moral reasons, but who do eat fish? I'm sure the fish would object to not being seen as animals.

BTW, people who are vegetarians for health reasons, and people who eat no animals whatsoever and make do distinction between pets and other animals I have no problem with.
Klodomir is offline  
Old 01-18-2002, 06:33 AM   #15
Anthony's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,538
Local Time: 02:15 PM
EXACTLY Klodomir, brilliantly said! All I can say regarding to your post (and yours Miss MacPhisto) is that I agree completely.

I'm aching to know, Miss MacPhisto, were you always a vegetarian? Were you always aware of the slaughter of the innocents? For gooness sakes woman. I have nothing against vegetarians, in fact, quite the opposite. I admire the wisdom of a vegetarian, I too have plans to become one when I'm 21, as I have been informed that if I don't have a proper vegetarian diet I might miss out on nutrients crucial for growth, however, I do have the intention.

As for veal, Adam's_mistress, I couldn't agree more, I haven't eaten it since I found out how the calfs were treated, which IS truly horrendous. HOWEVER, that is not the case with other animals, such as the cow and chicken, who are in most countries humanely sacrificed for others. And regarding your point about what is essential and what isn't essential to eat, MacPhisto, there are also plenty of vegetarians who don't eat properly and don't get enough essentials into their system, simply because they don't know exactly how and what to eat. My view is you can have whatever dies you choose, and still be unhealthy and still be doing something morally wrong, where do you draw the line?

Oh, what's wrong with vegetarianism, you ask? Who do you think picks the vegetables up in some countries, I'll tell you who; exploited third-worlders. People under the thumb of the developed and free-trading nations who are desperately trying to make a pittance in order to survive. Exploitation, Miss MacPhisto, one of the worst sins in the world and you are condoning it, may God have mercy on your soul.

You see how ridiculous such a view is? Who the hell are you to tell us what is wrong top eat, as long as it isn't humans or anything obscene that disrupts the food chain? Who are you to pass judgement on us?
And btw, Jesus Christ was a carnivore too. May God have mercy on his soul.


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 09:15 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright ©