Attendants at the Augusta Languish meet may or may not recall that I deeply enjoy calamari, but a few years back I stopped eating cephalopods, for the same reason that I would refuse to eat dog or cat. Octopi and cuttlefish are clearly too intelligent to be ethically consumed, and squid are borderline enough to qualify for protection.
Naturally, I would expect most people here would not even consider eating a great ape, cetacean, or elephant, animals approaching human levels of sapience, at least outside of a starvation scenario that would already permit a justification for eating other people.
I'm also disturbed by the possibility that pigs are cat/dog-level intelligent, because pig meat is too delicious to say goodbye to.
Are there any animals that you won't eat, because you consider their cognitive abilities to be sufficient to permit them a right to live?
Syt, whatever name he's posting under or if he's still here, need not reply to this, because "none" is not a terribly interesting answer. :P
Syt uses "Syt".
Well, that clears things up. But I haven't seen him since I returned.
The reason we don't eat dogs and cats isn't because they're smart, it's because they are our companions. Horses too, though they are too big to let go completely to waste when they die.
I don't understand the connection between intelligence and fitness for consumption. :huh:
IMO carnivores should be free to consume any other animal that provides necessary nutrients.... and I say this as a quasi-supporter of the Great Ape Personhood movement.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 13, 2009, 07:02:01 AM
Sytass uses "Syt".
Just struck me, he was one of the ones railing about namechangers, wasn't he? :rolleyes:
Since when are squid brainy?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 13, 2009, 07:06:08 AM
Since when are squid brainy?
Squid look like octopi, and are therefore equally intelligent? :huh:
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 07:07:39 AM
Squid look like octopi, and are therefore equally intelligent? :huh:
Since when are octopi brainy? I missed that memo too.
Pigs, dogs, cats, monkeys, apes, whales, dolphins, elephants. But I can't resist eating pigs. Sorry my mud wallowing friends, you're just too delicious.
No qualms about eating squid. They are the enemy.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 13, 2009, 07:10:00 AMSince when are octopi brainy? I missed that memo too.
AFAIK Ide is right about that. Octopi have been observed 'playing', which apparently only intelligent animals do, as well as figuring out how to get out of enclosures and how to unscrew jars to get at food inside.
I have no idea if this applies to all species or not, though. I wouldn't assume all monkeys are sapient just because humans are, for example.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 13, 2009, 07:06:08 AM
Since when are squid brainy?
They're not, but many of them have proportionally large, complex brains, usually related to their colour-changing abilities.
There is no animal that I wouldn't eat due to intelligence. I wouldn't eat human meat because it's socially unacceptable (even in Germany), and I wouldn't eat insect because I dislike their alien appearance.
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 07:07:39 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on August 13, 2009, 07:06:08 AM
Since when are squid brainy?
Squid look like octopi, and are therefore equally intelligent? :huh:
Squid are cephalopods, which as a group tend to have complex brains. They are not (on average) as intelligent as octopi*, but to the best of my knowledge it is not verified that they don't reach my arbitrary, gut-feeling theshold level. Some are no doubt very stupid--plenty of chordates are and I eat them with gusto. However, I doubt many servers or even chefs would be able to answer with particularity when you ask "what species is this?" at a seafood restaurant.
This is important--some squid species caught and sold for food are social hunters, displaying intelligence. I suspect cuttlefish is also sold as calamari, and cuttlefish are nearly linguistic--using chromatophoric visual communication that is also displayed by many species of squid. Along with imperfect information on my end about which species deserve protection as well as unresolved questions on my part regarding "what precisely constitutes an ethically indefensible consumption?", it is simply easier, and I think a more moral decision, to abstain entirely from cephalopod consumption.
Btw, this board needs its spellcheck software updated, "cephalopod" is not misspelled, nor is it a particularly uncommon word.
Cal, answer me this: how would you square the rights of primates with this putative right of a human predator to eat one? (Primates up to and including humans, even.) :unsure:
*Note: I don't want to too eagerly make broad generalizations about whole orders of animals that have hundreds of species apiece.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 07:24:39 AM
Cal, answer me this: how would you square the rights of primates with this putative right of a human predator to eat one? (Primates up to and including humans, even.) :unsure:
Because, as I've said before, I don't think there should be a connection between intelligence and eligibility to be consumed.
There are extraordinary social taboos against human cannibalism, but I don't think it really goes against nature. Isn't there ample evidence that humans have practiced it for like 99% of the time our species has existed? I have no desire to eat human meat but I'd do so in an emergency, as I know we all would whether or not we're willing to admit to it (e.g. Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571).
Cephalopods are too delicious to not be eaten.
If they were really smart, we wouldn't need to have this debate.
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 07:46:11 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 07:24:39 AM
Cal, answer me this: how would you square the rights of primates with this putative right of a human predator to eat one? (Primates up to and including humans, even.) :unsure:
Because, as I've said before, I don't think there should be a connection between intelligence and eligibility to be consumed.
There are extraordinary social taboos against human cannibalism, but I don't think it really goes against nature. Isn't there ample evidence that humans have practiced it for like 99% of the time our species has existed? I have no desire to eat human meat but I'd do so in an emergency, as I know we all would whether or not we're willing to admit to it (e.g. Uruguayan Air Force Flight 571).
Yeah, but necessity permits behaviors that would ordinarily be considered immoral. Of course I'd eat some dude if it meant I wouldn't die. But outside of necessity, I would consider it immoral, outside of the social taboos and the general predisposition many species have against eating their own.
I will not eat animals that enjoy companion status with man, but Caliga- to say we 'all' would resort to cannibalism is simply untrue.
Many people with qualms would instead be eaten, or die starving.
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2009, 07:51:03 AM
If they were really smart, we wouldn't need to have this debate.
Not necessarily--people actually did and do eat apes and dolphin often enough, but more modern sensibilities tend to be repulsed at the notion, due to a growing recognition of intelligence.
Marine creatures and deep marine creatures especially are not predisposed to intensive observation by human eyes of their behavior--cephalopod intelligence wasn't likely to be discovered until the latter half of the 20th century, when both a scientific mindset toward the subject as well as the technology and resources to study the subject existed.
Any that would see me coming, grab a rock and kill and eat me first - that is where I draw the line.
To be honest, no. I've had Guinea pig, I love squid, I've had dog (tastes like beef, btw). I wish I had tried ox and horse when I was in Mongolia. I'll try pretty much anything that's tasty and not human.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 07:56:48 AM
Not necessarily--people actually did and do eat apes and dolphin often enough, but more modern sensibilities tend to be repulsed at the notion, due to a growing recognition of intelligence.
I think it has more to do with charisma than intelligence.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 07:56:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2009, 07:51:03 AM
If they were really smart, we wouldn't need to have this debate.
Not necessarily--people actually did and do eat apes and dolphin often enough, but more modern sensibilities tend to be repulsed at the notion, due to a growing recognition of intelligence.
If they are not smart enough to avoid being a tasty snack, then they are not smart enough to worry about, obviously.
Quote from: Lettow77 on August 13, 2009, 07:54:42 AM
I will not eat animals that enjoy companion status with man, but Caliga- to say we 'all' would resort to cannibalism is simply untrue.
Many people with qualms would instead be eaten, or die starving.
I guess there's no way to know the answer to the question of whether or not we all would resort to cannibalism with certainty until we put everyone into a starvation situation and see what happens. I believe that more would partake than would not however.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 13, 2009, 07:57:11 AM
To be honest, no. I've had Guinea pig, I love squid, I've had dog (tastes like beef, btw). I wish I had tried ox and horse when I was in Mongolia. I'll try pretty much anything that's tasty and not human.
No need to go to Mongolia to eat horse, it's relatively common in Italy and France, for instance.
Quote from: The Larch on August 13, 2009, 08:04:15 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 13, 2009, 07:57:11 AM
To be honest, no. I've had Guinea pig, I love squid, I've had dog (tastes like beef, btw). I wish I had tried ox and horse when I was in Mongolia. I'll try pretty much anything that's tasty and not human.
No need to go to Mongolia to eat horse, it's relatively common in Italy and France, for instance.
Never knew that. Though Italy and France is not exactly a day trip, either. ;)
I saw commercials on French TV for horse.
You can buy Horse meat at the market here. They also got Kangoroo meat, which is awesome.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 07:53:39 AMYeah, but necessity permits behaviors that would ordinarily be considered immoral. Of course I'd eat some dude if it meant I wouldn't die. But outside of necessity, I would consider it immoral, outside of the social taboos and the general predisposition many species have against eating their own.
But in fact there are species which do engage in cannibalism, which tells me that it's as natural a behavior as avoiding it. If a carnivorous species doesn't engage in cannibalism, there's probably an evolutionary advantage to not doing so for that particular species.
If I'm correct in my assumption that throughout most of its existence, the human species has been a habitual cannibal, then I think this demonstrates that cannibalism is a natural behavior for us.
I think the notion that it is immoral 'outside of social taboos' is irrelevant because we have no way of ever getting outside of those social taboos unless society goes away, in which case I don't think you can predict what becomes normal vs. abnormal, since we have no reference points for humans lacking society.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 13, 2009, 07:57:11 AM
To be honest, no. I've had Guinea pig, I love squid, I've had dog (tastes like beef, btw). I wish I had tried ox and horse when I was in Mongolia. I'll try pretty much anything that's tasty and not human.
For what it's worth, I'm not making value judgments here. I'm kind of surprised dog tastes good, though. They don't look it.
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 08:08:27 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 07:53:39 AMYeah, but necessity permits behaviors that would ordinarily be considered immoral. Of course I'd eat some dude if it meant I wouldn't die. But outside of necessity, I would consider it immoral, outside of the social taboos and the general predisposition many species have against eating their own.
But in fact there are species which do engage in cannibalism, which tells me that it's as natural a behavior as avoiding it. If a carnivorous species doesn't engage in cannibalism, there's probably an evolutionary advantage to not doing so for that particular species.
If I'm correct in my assumption that throughout most of its existence, the human species has been a habitual cannibal, then I think this demonstrates that cannibalism is a natural behavior for us.
I think the notion that it is immoral 'outside of social taboos' is irrelevant because we have no way of ever getting outside of those social taboos unless society goes away, in which case I don't think you can predict what becomes normal vs. abnormal, since we have no reference points for humans lacking society.
If we're talking about cannibalism, let's be precise: predatory cannibalism, or carrion cannibalism? There's a significant difference, I think, both in evolutionary and moral terms, at least as significant as the difference between "necessary" and "casual" cannibalism.
When society collapses, my raiders will hit the fat farms.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg9.imageshack.us%2Fimg9%2F1222%2F365pxmadmax2fg6b.jpg&hash=e17293f128f0ead73b4e8de25f1c02dce46ccf89)
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 13, 2009, 08:07:06 AM
Quote from: The Larch on August 13, 2009, 08:04:15 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 13, 2009, 07:57:11 AM
To be honest, no. I've had Guinea pig, I love squid, I've had dog (tastes like beef, btw). I wish I had tried ox and horse when I was in Mongolia. I'll try pretty much anything that's tasty and not human.
No need to go to Mongolia to eat horse, it's relatively common in Italy and France, for instance.
Never knew that. Though Italy and France is not exactly a day trip, either. ;)
Also common in Mexico, apparently.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 08:15:09 AM
If we're talking about cannibalism, let's be precise: predatory cannibalism, or carrion cannibalism? There's a significant difference, I think, both in evolutionary and moral terms, at least as significant as the difference between "necessary" and "casual" cannibalism.
What about predatory ritual cannibalism, i.e. drinking the blood of one's enemies?
I'm always surprised when people voice surprise at the fact that horses are widely consumed in the Western world. :huh:
As for the initial question, to be honest, I don't make decisions whether to eat specific animals or not based on their intelligence. I probably wouldn't eat a dog or a cat, or an ape, because of my social conditioning, but wouldn't stop eating some species I usually eat if I found out they are more intelligent than I thought.
I realized some time ago that if I wanted to be consistently ethical about the food I eat, I would need to become a vegetarian. Since I won't (because I enjoy meat too much), I find any "I eat animal X because it is dumb but not Y because it is smart" kind of attitude to by hypocritical, akin to saying that it is ok to murder people if they are mentally retarded.
Yes, exactly. I don't understand why an animal has more intrinsic value because it is 'smarter'.
FWIW I don't think cows are particularly stupid, but I don't see anyone saying we should not eat beef.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 08:15:09 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 08:08:27 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 07:53:39 AMYeah, but necessity permits behaviors that would ordinarily be considered immoral. Of course I'd eat some dude if it meant I wouldn't die. But outside of necessity, I would consider it immoral, outside of the social taboos and the general predisposition many species have against eating their own.
But in fact there are species which do engage in cannibalism, which tells me that it's as natural a behavior as avoiding it. If a carnivorous species doesn't engage in cannibalism, there's probably an evolutionary advantage to not doing so for that particular species.
If I'm correct in my assumption that throughout most of its existence, the human species has been a habitual cannibal, then I think this demonstrates that cannibalism is a natural behavior for us.
I think the notion that it is immoral 'outside of social taboos' is irrelevant because we have no way of ever getting outside of those social taboos unless society goes away, in which case I don't think you can predict what becomes normal vs. abnormal, since we have no reference points for humans lacking society.
If we're talking about cannibalism, let's be precise: predatory cannibalism, or carrion cannibalism? There's a significant difference, I think, both in evolutionary and moral terms, at least as significant as the difference between "necessary" and "casual" cannibalism.
Generally speaking, in human history cannibalism has taken three forms, aside from the occasional psychopath:
- cannibalism as a funeral ritual (Herototous mentions this as his example of why "custom is king of all") - still common in places like New Gunea (the disease Kuru is spread in this manner - don't eat people's brains, please!).
- cannibalism as a ritual in warfare: 'I eat the enemy and steal his courage'.
- cannibalism as a last resort before starvation: the "custom of the sea".
In no cases as far as I know was cannibalism ever practiced as an ordinary dietary supplement. I know someone (Harris?) proposed that the Aztecs did just that, but the notion is foolish (what the Aztecs did was practice cannibalism as a war ritual on a large scale).
The reason is obvious: a diet of human meat is, of necessity, going to be extremely uncommon, because people are very dangerous and dislike being eaten. The Aztecs were probably the world's most successful cannibals, and the average Aztec warrior may, if they were lucky, take a couple of prisoners in their working life: hardly enough to supply themselves and their entire families with a lifetime supply of protein.
Malthus, I agree with you, but note that I was talking about human prehistory. ^_^
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 08:31:10 AM
Malthus, I agree with you, but note that I was talking about human prehistory. ^_^
There is nothing to indicate that prehistoric humans were any different. If anything, your average hunter-gatherer band would be
less in a position to hunt other humans, as hunter gatherer bands are less suited to offensive warfare - they are too vulnerable to retaliation in kind.
No question but that humans are perfectly willing to "prey" on each other given the chance. For some sort of predator-prey relationship to exist, there must be an inequality of power that allows one group to consistently get the better of the other, like African slavery in the colonial period. Hunter-gatherers tend to be too similar to set up such a relationship vs. each other. If anything, their relations (if hostile) would be more of the Hatfield-McCoy variety - a long-running feud punctuated by the occasional murder; if one group gets the better of the other, the losers tend to simply move away (in anthropological terms, "displacement").
Lions may fight other lions, but they tend not to prey on them. There are far easier game.
Quote from: The Larch on August 13, 2009, 08:22:07 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 13, 2009, 08:07:06 AM
Quote from: The Larch on August 13, 2009, 08:04:15 AM
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 13, 2009, 07:57:11 AM
To be honest, no. I've had Guinea pig, I love squid, I've had dog (tastes like beef, btw). I wish I had tried ox and horse when I was in Mongolia. I'll try pretty much anything that's tasty and not human.
No need to go to Mongolia to eat horse, it's relatively common in Italy and France, for instance.
Never knew that. Though Italy and France is not exactly a day trip, either. ;)
Also common in Mexico, apparently.
And in Belgium.
Quote from: Martinus on August 13, 2009, 08:27:30 AM
I'm always surprised when people voice surprise at the fact that horses are widely consumed in the Western world. :huh:
According to wiki, it's kind of a taboo in the English speaking world, and there are some qualms in Northern Europe stemming from the conversion to Christianity, as eating horse meat was considered to be linked to paganism.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 13, 2009, 07:57:11 AM
I've had Guinea pig
The only reason I can think of not to eat giunea pig is if it's someone's pet and they'll get mad at you
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 08:29:00 AM
FWIW I don't think cows are particularly stupid, but I don't see anyone saying we should not eat beef.
Lots of people don't eat beef
Quote from: Neil on August 13, 2009, 07:23:06 AM
I wouldn't eat human meat because it's socially unacceptable (even in Germany)....
:huh:
Since when?
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 13, 2009, 08:55:00 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 08:29:00 AM
FWIW I don't think cows are particularly stupid, but I don't see anyone on Languish saying we should not eat beef.
Lots of people don't eat beef
Amended. -_-
We shouldn't eat beef.
Bison is much tastier and healthier. :alberta:
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2009, 08:01:30 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 07:56:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2009, 07:51:03 AM
If they were really smart, we wouldn't need to have this debate.
Not necessarily--people actually did and do eat apes and dolphin often enough, but more modern sensibilities tend to be repulsed at the notion, due to a growing recognition of intelligence.
If they are not smart enough to avoid being a tasty snack, then they are not smart enough to worry about, obviously.
Even if Dolphins were as smart as humans or smarter, how could they possibly prevent us from eating them if we wanted to? They live in the sea and have no limbs with which to manipulate their environment and produce tools with.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 13, 2009, 10:37:47 AM
Even if Dolphins were as smart as humans or smarter, how could they possibly prevent us from eating them if we wanted to? They live in the sea and have no limbs with which to manipulate their environment and produce tools with?
Telekinesis?
Dunno how they would evolve that intelligence without also having ways to utilize it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 13, 2009, 10:37:47 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2009, 08:01:30 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 07:56:48 AM
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2009, 07:51:03 AM
If they were really smart, we wouldn't need to have this debate.
Not necessarily--people actually did and do eat apes and dolphin often enough, but more modern sensibilities tend to be repulsed at the notion, due to a growing recognition of intelligence.
If they are not smart enough to avoid being a tasty snack, then they are not smart enough to worry about, obviously.
Even if Dolphins were as smart as humans or smarter, how could they possibly prevent us from eating them if we wanted to? They live in the sea and have no limbs with which to manipulate their environment and produce tools with?
They could hire lawyers to sue anyone who eats them, paying in undersea treasures. :D
none
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 13, 2009, 10:37:47 AM
Even if Dolphins were as smart as humans or smarter, how could they possibly prevent us from eating them if we wanted to? They live in the sea and have no limbs with which to manipulate their environment and produce tools with.
All the monkeys will pay
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28315
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 06:59:57 AM
Attendants at the Augusta Languish meet may or may not recall that I deeply enjoy calamari, but a few years back I stopped eating cephalopods, for the same reason that I would refuse to eat dog or cat. Octopi and cuttlefish are clearly too intelligent to be ethically consumed, and squid are borderline enough to qualify for protection.
Naturally, I would expect most people here would not even consider eating a great ape, cetacean, or elephant, animals approaching human levels of sapience, at least outside of a starvation scenario that would already permit a justification for eating other people.
I'm also disturbed by the possibility that pigs are cat/dog-level intelligent, because pig meat is too delicious to say goodbye to.
Are there any animals that you won't eat, because you consider their cognitive abilities to be sufficient to permit them a right to live?
Syt, whatever name he's posting under or if he's still here, need not reply to this, because "none" is not a terribly interesting answer. :P
1. Why wouldn't you eat an intelligent animal? I'm not interested in eating great apes but that has more to do with their hairy humanesque looks and HIV rumors. Whale or elephant isn't served a lot in Sweden but if I got some I would eat it without giving the possibly high intelligence of the animal a thought.
2. Pigs are bright, that is well known. Our Western tradition of not eating cats and dogs has nothing to do with the perceived intelligence level of the animals.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on August 13, 2009, 07:57:11 AM
To be honest, no. I've had Guinea pig, I love squid, I've had dog (tastes like beef, btw). I wish I had tried ox and horse when I was in Mongolia. I'll try pretty much anything that's tasty and not human.
An ox is a castrated steer; you've probably had it somewhere along the way.
I've had cured horse (like horse ham) in Verona. It was unbelievably salty. Horse is a specialty of Parma; I got a chuckle out of the many restaurants which advertised "Horse Roast-Beef Style" there.
Horse is nice.
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2009, 10:34:00 AM
We shouldn't eat beef.
Bison is much tastier and healthier. :alberta:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.techtree.com%2Fttimages%2Fstory%2F72476_bison.jpg&hash=435f952cec54fae1852c3274e00f74f839084a6e)
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 09:09:22 AM
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on August 13, 2009, 08:55:00 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 08:29:00 AM
FWIW I don't think cows are particularly stupid, but I don't see anyone on Languish saying we should not eat beef.
Lots of people don't eat beef
Amended. -_-
I suppose I wouldn't tell anyone not to eat beef, but I generally won't eat it.
Quote from: Berkut on August 13, 2009, 08:01:30 AM
If they are not smart enough to avoid being a tasty snack, then they are not smart enough to worry about, obviously.
So eating babies, no big deal?
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 08:29:00 AM
FWIW I don't think cows are particularly stupid
Are you kidding me? I worked with cattle for many years and they are dumbest fucking things ever, which is a rather common trait for big herd herbivores. Brains are not really required to group up together and eat everything.
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2009, 10:34:00 AM
We shouldn't eat beef.
Bison is much tastier and healthier. :alberta:
I agree, but grass fed beef is also really lean. people need powerful protein.
anyhow, monkeys and apes would be risky I think.
because of my acculturation, I would not enjoy eating cats or dogs. possibly also horses.
I would not eat a wild pigeon, seagull, coyote, raccoon or squirrel found in any city, usually seen eating garbage.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 01:41:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 08:29:00 AM
FWIW I don't think cows are particularly stupid
Are you kidding me? I worked with cattle for many years and they are dumbest fucking things ever, which is a rather common trait for big herd herbivores. Brains are not really required to group up together and eat everything.
Cattle and sheep have outsourced thinking to humans for a few thousand years now.
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 01:41:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 08:29:00 AM
FWIW I don't think cows are particularly stupid
Are you kidding me? I worked with cattle for many years and they are dumbest fucking things ever, which is a rather common trait for big herd herbivores. Brains are not really required to group up together and eat everything.
Valmy's a cowboy!?
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 01:41:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 08:29:00 AM
FWIW I don't think cows are particularly stupid
Are you kidding me? I worked with cattle for many years and they are dumbest fucking things ever, which is a rather common trait for big herd herbivores. Brains are not really required to group up together and eat everything.
not particularly stupid != very intelligent.
I mean, what are you comparing cows to here?
Quote from: saskganesh on August 13, 2009, 02:18:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2009, 10:34:00 AM
We shouldn't eat beef.
Bison is much tastier and healthier. :alberta:
I agree, but grass fed beef is also really lean. people need powerful protein.
As opposed to hay fed beef? :unsure:
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2009, 03:11:32 PM
Quote from: saskganesh on August 13, 2009, 02:18:52 PM
Quote from: Barrister on August 13, 2009, 10:34:00 AM
We shouldn't eat beef.
Bison is much tastier and healthier. :alberta:
I agree, but grass fed beef is also really lean. people need powerful protein.
As opposed to hay fed beef? :unsure:
As opposed to corn (or chickpeas, or wheat, etc.) fed beef. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot
Dog eating to me is virtually on a par with human eating. Its their just reward- they figured out from thousands upon thousands of years ago how awesome humans were and they chose the winning team.
Also off the menu for ethical reasons- cats, rodents, horses, dolphins, whales, primates, maybe a few other not generally eaten ones that don't spring right to mind.
Pigs...Yeah they're smart but;
1: They're delicious
2: They're bastards who would eat you given half a chance.
Octopii, squid, etc.... I don't really have anything against eating them ethically but they're icky anyway.
Also bad for me is eating young animals.
Veal is something I have never touched and never will.
Lamb is...iffy. I try and avoid it when I can. It doesn't taste so grand to begin with which helps too.
Oh. And ducks. They're delicious but...I like ducks. So I try to avoid it unless its too good an offer to pass up (i.e. in a expensive Chinese restaurant and someone else is paying)
Oh. And to remember more- rabbit and guinea pig.
I would be interested in trying guinea pig sometime but...I couldn't make a habit of it. Poor little critters. They live their life in perpetual fear, just imagine if their fears were justified.
I used to have rabbit when I was a kid and didn't like it too much then anyway. But after encountering pet rabbits and seeing them in the wild I'm somewhat against it.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 13, 2009, 03:07:58 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 01:41:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 08:29:00 AM
FWIW I don't think cows are particularly stupid
Are you kidding me? I worked with cattle for many years and they are dumbest fucking things ever, which is a rather common trait for big herd herbivores. Brains are not really required to group up together and eat everything.
Valmy's a cowboy!?
I knew it!
And he was busting my ass for thinking he wears a ten-gallon hat. :lol:
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 03:09:25 PM
Quote from: Valmy on August 13, 2009, 01:41:04 PM
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 08:29:00 AM
FWIW I don't think cows are particularly stupid
Are you kidding me? I worked with cattle for many years and they are dumbest fucking things ever, which is a rather common trait for big herd herbivores. Brains are not really required to group up together and eat everything.
not particularly stupid != very intelligent.
I mean, what are you comparing cows to here?
Hey, just because you like women who have udders like a cows' doesn't mean you have to defend them. :P
Quote from: ulmont on August 13, 2009, 03:13:00 PM
As opposed to corn (or chickpeas, or wheat, etc.) fed beef. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot
:mmm: corn fed beef
@ Jos- why rodents?
I think I would draw the line with humans because they are the same species as me, not because of intelligence, hell fellow humans elected Obama, not very intelligent.
Quote from: Malthus on August 13, 2009, 08:29:35 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 08:15:09 AM
Quote from: Caliga on August 13, 2009, 08:08:27 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 07:53:39 AMYeah, but necessity permits behaviors that would ordinarily be considered immoral. Of course I'd eat some dude if it meant I wouldn't die. But outside of necessity, I would consider it immoral, outside of the social taboos and the general predisposition many species have against eating their own.
But in fact there are species which do engage in cannibalism, which tells me that it's as natural a behavior as avoiding it. If a carnivorous species doesn't engage in cannibalism, there's probably an evolutionary advantage to not doing so for that particular species.
If I'm correct in my assumption that throughout most of its existence, the human species has been a habitual cannibal, then I think this demonstrates that cannibalism is a natural behavior for us.
I think the notion that it is immoral 'outside of social taboos' is irrelevant because we have no way of ever getting outside of those social taboos unless society goes away, in which case I don't think you can predict what becomes normal vs. abnormal, since we have no reference points for humans lacking society.
If we're talking about cannibalism, let's be precise: predatory cannibalism, or carrion cannibalism? There's a significant difference, I think, both in evolutionary and moral terms, at least as significant as the difference between "necessary" and "casual" cannibalism.
Generally speaking, in human history cannibalism has taken three forms, aside from the occasional psychopath:
- cannibalism as a funeral ritual (Herototous mentions this as his example of why "custom is king of all") - still common in places like New Gunea (the disease Kuru is spread in this manner - don't eat people's brains, please!).
- cannibalism as a ritual in warfare: 'I eat the enemy and steal his courage'.
- cannibalism as a last resort before starvation: the "custom of the sea".
In no cases as far as I know was cannibalism ever practiced as an ordinary dietary supplement. I know someone (Harris?) proposed that the Aztecs did just that, but the notion is foolish (what the Aztecs did was practice cannibalism as a war ritual on a large scale).
The reason is obvious: a diet of human meat is, of necessity, going to be extremely uncommon, because people are very dangerous and dislike being eaten. The Aztecs were probably the world's most successful cannibals, and the average Aztec warrior may, if they were lucky, take a couple of prisoners in their working life: hardly enough to supply themselves and their entire families with a lifetime supply of protein.
Yeah, AFAIK there has never been a society in which the human flesh was consumed as a regular part of one's diet--it was alway either consumed ritually, or in an extreme emergency.
As to the thread question, there are no animals that I wouldn't consume because of their intelligence.
Quote from: The Brain on August 13, 2009, 11:07:52 AM
1. Why wouldn't you eat an intelligent animal? I'm not interested in eating great apes but that has more to do with their hairy humanesque looks and HIV rumors. Whale or elephant isn't served a lot in Sweden but if I got some I would eat it without giving the possibly high intelligence of the animal a thought.
The most ethically sound method of assigning rights to anyone is by determing what degree of sentience and sapience they possess. It is axiomatic that to cause pain is bad; it is axiomatic that destroying a mind is bad. These are, of course, unproveable, but if they are assumed, you can derive rules of behavior from them which insist that animals, other than humans, deserve protection from pain and destruction.
Categorizing animals is a difficult process, but certain points of reference can be well established:
Eating a shrimp is completely acceptable, because a shrimp is just a machine without conscious awareness or with so little that it doesn't matter
even to itself whether or not it actually lives, only that it's genes are perpetuated.
A chicken can feel pain and might have some dim inner existence, putting it in a gray area, but a chicken's insignificant feelings do not adequately balance my desire to eat it, although I would prefer that its pain be minimized.
Cats, dogs, pigs and possibly squid have thoughts and feelings, dreams and emotions. They must be, I suppose, off-limits.
Elephants, primates, and cetaceans, octopi and cuttlefish are thinking, feeling, even reasoning creatures with rich inner lifes, and it would be a moral wrong to take its life without justification or excuse.
A human is worth more than any elephant, or a number of elephants, of course. The exact ratio would be hard to pin down.
I suppose it must follow that some transhuman intelligence would be worth more than a number of humans, but we'll burn that bridge when we come to it. :lol: A weakness of this moral calculus can also be demonstrated by showing that it would create categories of varying worth
within humanity itself. However, these ethics impose only the same
negative rights--rights to
not be hurt, rights
not to be killed, rights to
not be imprisoned. Thus, even if the ethical logic assigns different values to different humans, this variance imposes no practical difficulty of application.
The only other method of assigning or accepting the rights of others that immediately occurs to me would be to do so based on selfishness principle, and categorizing beings as worthy of protection or not depending upon genetic relatedness.
In our case, this would create a hierarchy beginning with oneself (or one's twin, I suppose :p ), with the next level including children, siblings, and parents, and a few levels down the human species itself, with apes existing a few steps below that, and octopi occupying a rather unprotected position as our billionth or so cousins.
Fully alien life forms or artificial intelligences of entirely equal intelligence to humans would be entirely outside morality. This fact may demonstrate a weakness in the premises here, as it seems self-evidently wrong to kill, say, Skynet prior to Judgment Day--as well as being stupid, since human panic is what caused Skynet to launch nukes at Russia in the first place, pointing out a potential practical difficulty with failing to take into account the moral existence of intelligent, non-human life.
Quote2. Pigs are bright, that is well known. Our Western tradition of not eating cats and dogs has nothing to do with the perceived intelligence level of the animals.
Looks like I'll be shopping at kosher delis, then--although I'd actually probably have better luck with halal stores around here. I don't really eat much pork, anyway, although it takes pizzas down a peg in tastiness. :(
I was recently told that though the Chinese eat dogs and cats they find the eating of Lobsters barbaric. Most Chinese households have a pet lobster and it's not uncommon to see people outside walking them on the sidewalk. Different cultures I suppose.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2009, 02:38:42 AM
I was recently told that though the Chinese eat dogs and cats they find the eating of Lobsters barbaric. Most Chinese households have a pet lobster and it's not uncommon to see people outside walking them on the sidewalk. Different cultures I suppose.
Why not just keep pet rocks and eat whatever you want?
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2009, 02:38:42 AM
I was recently told that though the Chinese eat dogs and cats they find the eating of Lobsters barbaric. Most Chinese households have a pet lobster and it's not uncommon to see people outside walking them on the sidewalk. Different cultures I suppose.
I deleted what I originally wrote.
Walking lobsters? Really? On little leashes? Do they take them out on Incan torpedo boats for summer holidays?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alexross.com%2FAABF03Lobster.jpg&hash=10bf5c52405b8486feab5825832ee273928064db)
I don't think lobsters can even walk on land. Let alone survive out of water. Unless the Chicoms have developed a master race of giant space lobsters. The secret Origin of Doctor Zoidburg.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 14, 2009, 06:31:38 AM
I don't think lobsters can even walk on land. Let alone survive out of water. Unless the Chicoms have developed a master race of giant space lobsters. The secret Origin of Doctor Zoidburg.
Dunno. Depends on how long they can keep moisture in their gills. Pill bugs, another crustacean, do it fine, and crabs routinely leave the water. But lobsters are obviously marine, so I don't know how far this analogy goes--I mean, whales breathe air, but dehydrate and die shockingly swiftly.
However, I think it would be neat if there are Chinese Crazy Lobster Ladies.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 14, 2009, 06:31:38 AM
I don't think lobsters can even walk on land. Let alone survive out of water.
They can survive on land for a bit. I can remember trying to make lobsters fight each other as a kid before throwing them in to the pot of boiling water.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 13, 2009, 04:19:28 PM
Quote from: ulmont on August 13, 2009, 03:13:00 PM
As opposed to corn (or chickpeas, or wheat, etc.) fed beef. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot
:mmm: corn fed beef
@ Jos- why rodents?
I've always had them as pets and like them. They're clever and pretty human like in some of their behaviour.
That you would have to kill a dozen of them to get a decent meal just adds to the no factor.
I had a pet guinea pig and my brother had a pet mouse. I always liked rodent pets, but Princesca will not have them. :(
I liked the mouse better. He was a tough little fucker. My brother forgot about him for a couple of weeks once and he was still alive. :cool:
Dolphins which will soon be eaten in the Faroe Islands.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fe%2Fee%2FHvalba_26-08-06_%25283%2529.jpg&hash=d4070ddb180c2aad725680484d684c254662c810)
As they say in Canton, "The Cantonese will eat anything on the ground but the chair, anything in the water but the ship and anything in the air but the aeroplane."
Nordic savages <_<
Quote from: Caliga on August 14, 2009, 07:13:36 AM
I had a pet guinea pig and my brother had a pet mouse. I always liked rodent pets, but Princesca will not have them. :(
I liked the mouse better. He was a tough little fucker. My brother forgot about him for a couple of weeks once and he was still alive. :cool:
Friend of mine has a big rodent fetish. He claims the many cardboard tubes in his house are for his guinea pigs to chew on, but we know better. :(
Apparently guinea pigs are used forp izza toppings in some countries.
Well, they're raised in little herds specificially for their meat in Peru.
Guinea pig bacon?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 13, 2009, 03:07:58 PM
Valmy's a cowboy!?
On my Uncle's farm in Oklahoma...I did all my cowboying on foot though.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 14, 2009, 06:13:14 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2009, 02:38:42 AM
I was recently told that though the Chinese eat dogs and cats they find the eating of Lobsters barbaric. Most Chinese households have a pet lobster and it's not uncommon to see people outside walking them on the sidewalk. Different cultures I suppose.
I deleted what I originally wrote.
Walking lobsters? Really? On little leashes? Do they take them out on Incan torpedo boats for summer holidays?
What did you originally write?
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 14, 2009, 07:57:46 AM
Friend of mine has a big rodent fetish. He claims the many cardboard tubes in his house are for his guinea pigs to chew on, but we know better. :(
Apparently guinea pigs are used forp izza toppings in some countries.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=136cNGNd7Yg
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2009, 08:33:18 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 14, 2009, 06:13:14 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2009, 02:38:42 AM
I was recently told that though the Chinese eat dogs and cats they find the eating of Lobsters barbaric. Most Chinese households have a pet lobster and it's not uncommon to see people outside walking them on the sidewalk. Different cultures I suppose.
I deleted what I originally wrote.
Walking lobsters? Really? On little leashes? Do they take them out on Incan torpedo boats for summer holidays?
What did you originally write?
That that was ridiculous.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on August 13, 2009, 04:19:28 PM
Quote from: ulmont on August 13, 2009, 03:13:00 PM
As opposed to corn (or chickpeas, or wheat, etc.) fed beef. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feedlot
:mmm: corn fed beef
and that's why you are fat and have heart disease.
Quote from: saskganesh on August 14, 2009, 09:25:55 AM
and that's why you are fat and have heart disease.
I'm fairly certain eating steak once a month isn't the reason I'm fat.
It is: glandular!
I eat loads of meat and I'm underweight. However, my turds are: massive
Quote from: Sahib on August 14, 2009, 07:49:50 AM
Nordic savages <_<
if you only knew how good they taste then you'd be one of us as well at the next BBQ
Quote from: Caliga on August 14, 2009, 08:05:39 AM
Well, they're raised in little herds specificially for their meat in Peru.
Quite horrible to think of those cute little critters being killed in their hundreds but its also sort of funny to imagine them being farmed...Thats one seriously lame breed of cowboy.
No no, people actually keep little herds of them in their houses. :contract:
Quote from: Caliga on August 14, 2009, 10:00:44 AM
No no, people actually keep little herds of them in their houses. :contract:
Fine kill my dream of a massive commerical Guinea Pig herd.
The noise of thousands of them squeaking at once would be amazing alone.
Quote from: Viking on August 14, 2009, 09:45:56 AM
Quote from: Sahib on August 14, 2009, 07:49:50 AM
Nordic savages <_<
if you only knew how good they taste then you'd be one of us as well at the next BBQ
Doubtful. <_<
Quote from: Tyr on August 14, 2009, 09:58:43 AM
Quite horrible to think of those cute little critters being killed in their hundreds but its also sort of funny to imagine them being farmed...Thats one seriously lame breed of cowboy.
On a similar note, I was watching the weather channel which had a program on about the Dust Bowl and the things that resulted from it.
One of the things was an overpopulation of Jack Rabbits. They had film of hundreds of people rounding up 40,000+ Jack Rabbits into a little pen in less than four hours of work. They stopped showing the film as the people entered the corral with clubs and bats.
This thread is making me want to be a vegetarian. :p
ok not really. I'm not eating any animals that eat garbage as their main source of food. I've tried a lot of meat that is hunted. If butchered, and cooked properly there's lots of great sources of protein & deliciousness in the wild.
I would be adverse to knowingly eating Dogs or Cats due to acculturation.
I have no interest in eating whales (dolphins are apparently small whales according to Japanese fishermen) pigeons, ducks, geese, weird wild birds.
have had Bear, meh. too strongly wild for my taste. Deer and Moose are the cows of the forest.
Lobster is delicious. sea insects like these are the only insects I would eat.
I like calamari a lot. Octopus if it's done right - yummy
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 11:38:29 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 13, 2009, 11:07:52 AM
1. Why wouldn't you eat an intelligent animal? I'm not interested in eating great apes but that has more to do with their hairy humanesque looks and HIV rumors. Whale or elephant isn't served a lot in Sweden but if I got some I would eat it without giving the possibly high intelligence of the animal a thought.
The most ethically sound method of assigning rights to anyone is by determing what degree of sentience and sapience they possess. It is axiomatic that to cause pain is bad; it is axiomatic that destroying a mind is bad. These are, of course, unproveable, but if they are assumed, you can derive rules of behavior from them which insist that animals, other than humans, deserve protection from pain and destruction.
Categorizing animals is a difficult process, but certain points of reference can be well established:
Eating a shrimp is completely acceptable, because a shrimp is just a machine without conscious awareness or with so little that it doesn't matter even to itself whether or not it actually lives, only that it's genes are perpetuated.
A chicken can feel pain and might have some dim inner existence, putting it in a gray area, but a chicken's insignificant feelings do not adequately balance my desire to eat it, although I would prefer that its pain be minimized.
Cats, dogs, pigs and possibly squid have thoughts and feelings, dreams and emotions. They must be, I suppose, off-limits.
Elephants, primates, and cetaceans, octopi and cuttlefish are thinking, feeling, even reasoning creatures with rich inner lifes, and it would be a moral wrong to take its life without justification or excuse.
A human is worth more than any elephant, or a number of elephants, of course. The exact ratio would be hard to pin down.
I suppose it must follow that some transhuman intelligence would be worth more than a number of humans, but we'll burn that bridge when we come to it. :lol: A weakness of this moral calculus can also be demonstrated by showing that it would create categories of varying worth within humanity itself. However, these ethics impose only the same negative rights--rights to not be hurt, rights not to be killed, rights to not be imprisoned. Thus, even if the ethical logic assigns different values to different humans, this variance imposes no practical difficulty of application.
The only other method of assigning or accepting the rights of others that immediately occurs to me would be to do so based on selfishness principle, and categorizing beings as worthy of protection or not depending upon genetic relatedness.
In our case, this would create a hierarchy beginning with oneself (or one's twin, I suppose :p ), with the next level including children, siblings, and parents, and a few levels down the human species itself, with apes existing a few steps below that, and octopi occupying a rather unprotected position as our billionth or so cousins.
Fully alien life forms or artificial intelligences of entirely equal intelligence to humans would be entirely outside morality. This fact may demonstrate a weakness in the premises here, as it seems self-evidently wrong to kill, say, Skynet prior to Judgment Day--as well as being stupid, since human panic is what caused Skynet to launch nukes at Russia in the first place, pointing out a potential practical difficulty with failing to take into account the moral existence of intelligent, non-human life.
Quote2. Pigs are bright, that is well known. Our Western tradition of not eating cats and dogs has nothing to do with the perceived intelligence level of the animals.
Looks like I'll be shopping at kosher delis, then--although I'd actually probably have better luck with halal stores around here. I don't really eat much pork, anyway, although it takes pizzas down a peg in tastiness. :(
I would never claim that your are morally wrong (I don't know what that is) but a couple of observations:
1. Ironically you may be overthinking food.
2. Are you sure you're not a woman?
Quote from: The Brain on August 14, 2009, 12:53:36 PM
I would never claim that your are morally wrong (I don't know what that is)
I'm not sure what "Your are morally wrong" is either. :(
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2009, 01:00:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 14, 2009, 12:53:36 PM
I would never claim that your are morally wrong (I don't know what that is)
I'm not sure what "Your are morally wrong" is either. :(
Get a room, you two.
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 11:38:29 PM
Elephants, primates, and cetaceans, octopi and cuttlefish are thinking, feeling, even reasoning creatures with rich inner lifes, and it would be a moral wrong to take its life without justification or excuse.
How is nourishment not justification? It's not like you're going on a killing spree and taking the lives of animals for fun.
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2009, 01:00:01 PM
Quote from: The Brain on August 14, 2009, 12:53:36 PM
I would never claim that your are morally wrong (I don't know what that is)
I'm not sure what "Your are morally wrong" is either. :(
Fuck off and die, you fucking queer. You're even worse than Martinus.
At any rate, Ide is overthinking matters. When it comes to eating, there is no such thing as morality. Just as the lion doesn't care about how intelligent the elephant is when it kills and eats it, so should we not. To do anything else is to open the road to PETA thinking.
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2009, 06:06:10 PM
Fuck off and die, you fucking queer. You're even worse than Martinus.
Just because you enjoy IKK-GF speak, doesn't mean that the rest of us do.
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2009, 06:11:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2009, 06:06:10 PM
Fuck off and die, you fucking queer. You're even worse than Martinus.
Just because you enjoy IKK-GF speak, doesn't mean that the rest of us do.
It's not so much that I enjoy it. Rather, I understand the limitations of those for whom English is a second language.
Besides, I'd give you up before I'd give up The Brain or Emo Fox, despite your superior grasp of the English language.
Quote from: Korea on August 14, 2009, 05:26:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 11:38:29 PM
Elephants, primates, and cetaceans, octopi and cuttlefish are thinking, feeling, even reasoning creatures with rich inner lifes, and it would be a moral wrong to take its life without justification or excuse.
How is nourishment not justification? It's not like you're going on a killing spree and taking the lives of animals for fun.
According to PETA you are doing just that.
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2009, 06:20:33 PM
Rather, I understand the limitations of those for whom English is a second language.
I do as well, except when they are trying to dish out put downs.
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2009, 06:20:33 PMBesides, I'd give you up before I'd give up The Brain or Emo Fox, despite your superior grasp of the English language.
Fair. After all, with GF, you not only get bastardized English but bastardized French too! :)
Quote from: garbon on August 14, 2009, 06:37:41 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2009, 06:20:33 PM
Rather, I understand the limitations of those for whom English is a second language.
I do as well, except when they are trying to dish out put downs.
That is their right.
QuoteQuote from: Neil on August 14, 2009, 06:20:33 PMBesides, I'd give you up before I'd give up The Brain or Emo Fox, despite your superior grasp of the English language.
Fair. After all, with GF, you not only get bastardized English but bastardized French too! :)
Gay Fox doesn't really speak French. Otherwise, he'd know better.
garbon is gay. I rest my case.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 14, 2009, 08:41:30 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2009, 08:33:18 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 14, 2009, 06:13:14 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 14, 2009, 02:38:42 AM
I was recently told that though the Chinese eat dogs and cats they find the eating of Lobsters barbaric. Most Chinese households have a pet lobster and it's not uncommon to see people outside walking them on the sidewalk. Different cultures I suppose.
I deleted what I originally wrote.
Walking lobsters? Really? On little leashes? Do they take them out on Incan torpedo boats for summer holidays?
What did you originally write?
That that was ridiculous.
True, but so is what Ide is going on about.
Well yes. There is that.
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2009, 06:10:02 PM
At any rate, Ide is overthinking matters. When it comes to eating, there is no such thing as morality. Just as the lion doesn't care about how intelligent the elephant is when it kills and eats it, so should we not. To do anything else is to open the road to PETA thinking.
Exactly! :w00t:
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 14, 2009, 06:21:55 PM
Quote from: Korea on August 14, 2009, 05:26:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 11:38:29 PM
Elephants, primates, and cetaceans, octopi and cuttlefish are thinking, feeling, even reasoning creatures with rich inner lifes, and it would be a moral wrong to take its life without justification or excuse.
How is nourishment not justification? It's not like you're going on a killing spree and taking the lives of animals for fun.
According to PETA you are doing just that.
Well, PETA is full of idiots.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on August 14, 2009, 06:21:55 PM
Quote from: Korea on August 14, 2009, 05:26:45 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on August 13, 2009, 11:38:29 PM
Elephants, primates, and cetaceans, octopi and cuttlefish are thinking, feeling, even reasoning creatures with rich inner lifes, and it would be a moral wrong to take its life without justification or excuse.
How is nourishment not justification? It's not like you're going on a killing spree and taking the lives of animals for fun.
According to PETA you are doing just that.
according to PETA Fake fur is murder. buncha tards. I'd rather hang out with a born again tard than a PETA Tard.
Quote from: The Brain on August 14, 2009, 12:53:36 PM
I would never claim that your are morally wrong (I don't know what that is) but a couple of observations:
1. Ironically you may be overthinking food.
2. Are you sure you're not a woman?
:lol:
Well, you asked me to explain my logic, so I did.
Quote from: KoreaHow is nourishment not justification? It's not like you're going on a killing spree and taking the lives of animals for fun.
Fine, the next time you're feeling peckish, we'll butcher the cats instead of buying food. It's about
alternatives--since food of unambigious moral content is readily available in all the varieties we require to live and function, there is no justification or excuse for you to eat my liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti.
:rolleyes:
Okay, obviously you weren't paying attention to the beginning of the thread. I would not eat a cat or dog because of cultural reasons. So our cats are fine. I am talking about cows and pigs which are bred for food. Personally I wouldn't eat squid or octopi because I think they have a weird texture.
If you are not gonna eat mammals for personal reasons then you should't eat chicken either. They have feelings too.
Quote from: Korea on August 16, 2009, 07:16:30 AM
:rolleyes:
Okay, obviously you weren't paying attention to the beginning of the thread. I would not eat a cat or dog because of cultural reasons. So our cats are fine. I am talking about cows and pigs which are bred for food. Personally I wouldn't eat squid or octopi because I think they have a weird texture.
If you are not gonna eat mammals for personal reasons then you should't eat chicken either. They have feelings too.
Tell Ide to stop being a Pussy. Your house already has two. You don't need more.
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2009, 06:10:02 PM
At any rate, Ide is overthinking matters. When it comes to eating, there is no such thing as morality. Just as the lion doesn't care about how intelligent the elephant is when it kills and eats it, so should we not. To do anything else is to open the road to PETA thinking.
Lions can't kill an Elephant.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 07:53:16 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2009, 06:10:02 PM
At any rate, Ide is overthinking matters. When it comes to eating, there is no such thing as morality. Just as the lion doesn't care about how intelligent the elephant is when it kills and eats it, so should we not. To do anything else is to open the road to PETA thinking.
Lions can't kill an Elephant.
This is, of course, incorrect. I've seen it happen.
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 08:04:45 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 07:53:16 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2009, 06:10:02 PM
At any rate, Ide is overthinking matters. When it comes to eating, there is no such thing as morality. Just as the lion doesn't care about how intelligent the elephant is when it kills and eats it, so should we not. To do anything else is to open the road to PETA thinking.
Lions can't kill an Elephant.
This is, of course, incorrect. I've seen it happen.
Maybe a baby, but even that's tough for them, they can't crush the windpipe which is their main way to kill.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 08:18:00 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 08:04:45 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 07:53:16 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2009, 06:10:02 PM
At any rate, Ide is overthinking matters. When it comes to eating, there is no such thing as morality. Just as the lion doesn't care about how intelligent the elephant is when it kills and eats it, so should we not. To do anything else is to open the road to PETA thinking.
Lions can't kill an Elephant.
This is, of course, incorrect. I've seen it happen.
Maybe a baby, but even that's tough for them, they can't crush the windpipe which is their main way to kill.
The one I saw killed was a young adult. Stop trying to convince me it can't be done. Your conviction is nothing against my own senses.
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 08:21:18 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 08:18:00 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 08:04:45 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on August 16, 2009, 07:53:16 AM
Quote from: Neil on August 14, 2009, 06:10:02 PM
At any rate, Ide is overthinking matters. When it comes to eating, there is no such thing as morality. Just as the lion doesn't care about how intelligent the elephant is when it kills and eats it, so should we not. To do anything else is to open the road to PETA thinking.
Lions can't kill an Elephant.
This is, of course, incorrect. I've seen it happen.
Maybe a baby, but even that's tough for them, they can't crush the windpipe which is their main way to kill.
The one I saw killed was a young adult.
How? :yeahright:
Jumped on it in a group of about 12-15 at night. Exhausted it. Bled it to death. It tried to run, but they tore and snapped at it's hindquarters while it was on the run.
Provided that it isn't too big, a lone elephant can be taken by a pride.
A Pride is enough to kill anyone's will to live.
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2009, 07:23:12 AM
Quote from: Korea on August 16, 2009, 07:16:30 AM
:rolleyes:
Okay, obviously you weren't paying attention to the beginning of the thread. I would not eat a cat or dog because of cultural reasons. So our cats are fine. I am talking about cows and pigs which are bred for food. Personally I wouldn't eat squid or octopi because I think they have a weird texture.
If you are not gonna eat mammals for personal reasons then you should't eat chicken either. They have feelings too.
Tell Ide to stop being a Pussy. Your house already has two. You don't need more.
:lol:
4
:ph34r:
Quote from: Korea on August 16, 2009, 01:09:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2009, 07:23:12 AM
Quote from: Korea on August 16, 2009, 07:16:30 AM
:rolleyes:
Okay, obviously you weren't paying attention to the beginning of the thread. I would not eat a cat or dog because of cultural reasons. So our cats are fine. I am talking about cows and pigs which are bred for food. Personally I wouldn't eat squid or octopi because I think they have a weird texture.
If you are not gonna eat mammals for personal reasons then you should't eat chicken either. They have feelings too.
Tell Ide to stop being a Pussy. Your house already has two. You don't need more.
:lol:
4
:ph34r:
Four pussies? You've missed your call as a porn star :P
Not this one either.
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 08:41:23 AM
Jumped on it in a group of about 12-15 at night. Exhausted it. Bled it to death. It tried to run, but they tore and snapped at it's hindquarters while it was on the run.
Provided that it isn't too big, a lone elephant can be taken by a pride.
On BBC Documentary Planet Earth Episode about the Savana. they have a group of about 8 lions jumping an Elephant. the Extra on the dvd explains how they filmed it.
Quote from: Grey Fox on August 16, 2009, 09:10:36 PM
Quote from: Neil on August 16, 2009, 08:41:23 AM
Jumped on it in a group of about 12-15 at night. Exhausted it. Bled it to death. It tried to run, but they tore and snapped at it's hindquarters while it was on the run.
Provided that it isn't too big, a lone elephant can be taken by a pride.
On BBC Documentary Planet Earth Episode about the Savana. they have a group of about 8 lions jumping an Elephant. the Extra on the dvd explains how they filmed it.
Then National Geographic has misled me, I concede. -_-
Quote from: HVC on August 16, 2009, 08:57:49 PM
Quote from: Korea on August 16, 2009, 01:09:56 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on August 16, 2009, 07:23:12 AM
Quote from: Korea on August 16, 2009, 07:16:30 AM
:rolleyes:
Okay, obviously you weren't paying attention to the beginning of the thread. I would not eat a cat or dog because of cultural reasons. So our cats are fine. I am talking about cows and pigs which are bred for food. Personally I wouldn't eat squid or octopi because I think they have a weird texture.
If you are not gonna eat mammals for personal reasons then you should't eat chicken either. They have feelings too.
Tell Ide to stop being a Pussy. Your house already has two. You don't need more.
:lol:
4
:ph34r:
Four pussies? You've missed your call as a porn star :P
:lol:
I'm the crazy cat lady. :Embarrass:
This one's for you, Ide.
QuoteMan escapes charges for barbecuing pet dog
Man had roasted his pet dog to enjoy as a meal with his family and friends
By Saeed Ahmed
CNN
(CNN) -- A man who roasted his pet dog to enjoy as a meal with his family and friends escaped prosecution after authorities in New Zealand determined the animal was killed humanely.
Auckland SPCA officers found the charred body of a Staffordshire terrier cooking in this barbecue pit.
"We were in a dilemma at seeing something we were fairly upset about -- but being in a position of being able to do absolutely nothing about it," said Garth Halliday, of the Auckland Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, on Monday.
The SPCA -- which investigates acts of animal cruelty and presses charges -- responded to the house in Mangere, south of Auckland.
There, officers found the charred body of a Staffordshire terrier cooking in a barbecue pit.
"They had had the dog for a while, but the man told us his wife was getting tired of the dog. He was becoming a pest," Halliday said.
"They decided to get rid of him. But instead of bringing him to the SPCA -- which we recommend -- they decided to have a meal, and cook and eat him."
The family is from Tonga where eating a dog is not uncommon, Halliday said.
"He didn't think he was doing anything wrong," he said.
The incident occurred in February. For the next few months, the SPCA looked into whether the man ought to be charged for the killing. Over the weekend, the organization decided it couldn't because the animal had been killed humanely.
The man, Halliday said, struck the dog in the head with a hammer, rendering it unconscious. He then slit its throat.
"That is the normal way -- if one can use that word -- that animals are killed all over the world," Halliday said.
And under New Zealand's Animal Welfare Act, it is legal to kill an animal if it is slaughtered swiftly and painlessly.
Dr Malakai Koloamatangi, a Tongan cultural expert from the University of Canterbury, told CNN affiliate TVNZ that dog meat is a delicacy enjoyed mostly by young men in his homeland.
Still, the case infuriated and repulsed many New Zealanders.
"It's appalling," said Gracie Williams of Auckland. "As an animal lover, I am sickened. The law needs to be changed."
Auckland Mayor John Banks, an animal rights activist, told reporters that rather than a new law, what is needed is better education of local customs.
In the end, the SPCA closed the case without charges.
"We talked to the people. We told them that although it's not against the law, it is against the general culture of the country to actually kill and eat your own pet dog," Halliday said.
Dog :mmm:
QuoteDr Malakai Koloamatangi, a Tongan cultural expert from the University of Canterbury, told CNN affiliate TVNZ that dog meat is a delicacy enjoyed mostly by young men in his homeland.
Hey, they were from
Tonga. It could have been worse. :P
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9D01E6D61539E433A2575BC0A9639C946196D6CF