eating dogs / sex with animals

[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?

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.

[Miss MacPhisto]

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]

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.

[sulawesigirl4]

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?

[Miss MacPhisto]

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).]

[adam's_mistress]

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*

[Miss MacPhisto]

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).]

[Anthony]

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]

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]

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.

[Miss MacPhisto]

Well Jesus did say: Come and i will make you fishers of men.
And anyway, if you dont believe in passing moral judgement on anyone, then once again, we must allow the murder of humans, and every other evil, because who are we to say its wrong???

[Anthony]

My dear Miss MacPhisto, how convenient it is for you to remember the first part of the sentence and disregard the second; I said that we are NOBODY to pass judgement on anything or anyone concerning food, and what we consume as food, with the obvious exception of cannibalism, which, as explained by earlier posts, is immediately deemed as immoral.

All food is blessed, it was God-given, surely you can believe that much.

Ant.

[Anthony]

And what on Earth do you mean with that Jesus quote? So what?! It evidently means, if anything, that we should eat fish... but no doubt you would find it immoral and condem us all to your punishments.

Ant.

[sulawesigirl4]

"follow me and I will make you fishers of men" is a metaphor that Jesus was employing while calling men who happened to be fishermen to work with him. To take it out of context destroys the meaning.

[doctorwho]

If I may interject here - on a purely scientific level...

Cats and dogs, domesticated or not, do NOT have to eat meat. They, like all living entities, do require protein - but they do NOT have to eat meat to obtain it. There are vegetarian products for our pets that contain more than enough protein. Therefore, to state that these animals *must* eat meat to survive is erroneous.

Likewise, in most of the Western world, humans can easily survive on the proteins obtained from vegetable sources. Therefore, a decision to eat meat is a personal one, much like religion, and it should be respected.

While practices of animal slaughter have dramatically improved over the years, overall, many food-animals are still treated poorly (due to overmilking, cramped conditions or undernourishment). Also, even in the "sacred" U.S., some animals on some "farms" are slaughtered cruelly. It seems odd to me that people can dote on one type of animal, but care nothing about the inhumane slaughter of another.

The Bible cites many examples of eating and sacrificing animals. Therefore, many religious people accept the slaughter of animals, especially for food. That said, as with many verses of the Bible that have become "outdated," just as animal sacrifice has come to pass, so to may have animal consumption. It may indeed be time we rethink the roles of animals in our world - a thought I feel we have ignored for far too long (as evidenced by the rapid extinction of animals and other life forms on this planet).

I am not a vegetarian - however, I am taking more notice of the meat I eat. While poultry and fish remain in my diet, pork and beef do not. I tried to be a vegetarian once before and was amazed at the resistance I received. However, I think today's world might be more accepting. Nonetheless, it is my choice to not be a vegetarian at this time. I would be offended by anyone taking issue with this.

The decision to eat or not eat meat is personal and should be respected. I would not eat a dog, this is my decision. If someone chooses to eat a dog, I will respect that right - providing the meat isn't wasted.

The one area I find annoying is waste. In the U.S., we euthanize hundreds of thousands of "pets" due to overpopulation. Many people love that "cute little puppy" but hate that "big grown dog." Others adore an Easter duckling, but despise a loud duck. Kittens are a fun ball of fluff, but become unwanted adult cats. Rather than criticize people over their animal-eating diets, I'd rather criticize people over the choice of pets and their inability to be proper pet owners.

People scream how wrong it is to use a dog for food or scientific research, yet they poorly treat their own pets, not providing them proper food and/or medication. Others fail to neuter their pets, which leads to overpopulation and unwanted animals. I cannot comprehend a society that kills hundreds of thousands of animals due to neglect, yet screams "foul" at the thought of using a "pet" for food or research.

It's this contradiction, cruelty and waste that annoy me more than the thought of eating a dog. Still, one cannot simply state that one *must* eat meat to get protein, as the proper combination of vegetables will supply all the protein we need in our diets.

Ultimately, my point is that we should not criticize a person for desiring to try dog any more that we should criticize a person for eating an egg or a cow. And rather than cry at the cruelty of killing a dog for food, we should look internally at our own cruelty towards our "pets" as well as the animals we "serve for dinner."

********************

Oh, as for bestiality... well, I find it best not to delve into the human psyche on sexuality, so my statement here will be brief. I find bestiality offensive, but I will still respect the right of someone (hopefully someone FAR away from me) to do this as long as they are not treating the animal cruelly.




[This message has been edited by doctorwho (edited 01-18-2002).]

[Anthony]

Originally posted by sulawesigirl4:
"follow me and I will make you fishers of men" is a metaphor that Jesus was employing while calling men who happened to be fishermen to work with him. To take it out of context destroys the meaning.

Yes, sulaswesigirl14, I did realise that, that was what I was saying; Miss MacPhisto doesn't really have a point in putting that quote out of contest.

Ant.

[Anthony]

A truly great post, doctorwho, however... I have on enquiry...

Originally posted by doctorwho:
as long as they are not treating the animal cruelly.

Is that possible in bestiality?

Ant.

[Miss MacPhisto]

Well, people have used the bible to condone many cruel practises: slavery, mistreatment of women and children, cruelty torwards homosexuals,etc.
But you cant place yourself above all others and go ona bout how its not ok to eat humans, but its perfectly ok to eat a dog. Dogs,cats, and horses(among others) are not, and never have been "food animals" (yes i abhore that term)to any people except freaks who'll eat anything that moves.
Primitive human beings developed the dog exclusively for the purpose for companionship and to help out with certain tasks, such as guarding, herding, hunting, etc...and the cat, for companionship and to help eliminate vermin.
Horses were hunted by some, but this practise quickly stopped when it was discovered that they could be riden and used for work.
SOME dogs and cats can be vegetarians, but this diet must be closely monitored by a veterinarian. And cats dont do as well as dogs. They need taurine, which currently can only be found in meat sources, or so i'm told.
As for other forms of cruelty torwards dogs and cats,such as overpopulation, no one in their right mind would allow that either.

[Salome]

Originally posted by Miss MacPhisto:
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.

human kind is not a herbivore (at least it wasn't last time I saw a discussion like this)
instead of hunting (like other animals do) we raise animals ourself and use them for consumption
human race has evolved a bit, but basically we're still following our instinct

we don't raise pets for consumption, that's why we don't eat them

personally, I'll eat anything that doesn't run away from me

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[doctorwho]

Originally posted by Anthony:

Is that possible in bestiality?

Ant.

Having never participated in any form of bestiality, I can't answer. However, I'm sure that one could do both. One of my most perverted friends used to talk about having a dog lick peanut butter off of his, well... He did NOT actually do this - he just thought of it (like I said, he was perverted, at least by my standards ).

If all the dog is doing is licking, uh, something, then I guess it's not being cruelly treated. So there's one example of humane bestiality. Blah.



[This message has been edited by doctorwho (edited 01-18-2002).]