Why is eating pig okay, but not eating dog?

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sough38)
    Yeah run away scared when you realise you'll stand no chance in a rational debate.
    Where u gone keyboard warrior


    Posted from u a hoe mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnemyofState)
    Tbh this is a pointless argument and has no correct ethical answer. Humans are the most unsustainable destroying species on this planet. Do you care what happened to the animal that is on your plate?
    Ok..common sense will tell you that as humans, we have developed a relationship with the dog and therefore the value of dogs is higher than pigs. Anything to argue about there?
    You must have a pig as a pet I assume, say hi for me


    Posted from u a hoe mobile
    Some people do actually care about the animal that is on your plate yes.

    That's a stupid argument you are putting forward. What you're basically saying is that its wrong because i say its wrong because i like dogs better than pigs. The suffering of a dog is wrong because i have a dog as a pet but the suffering of a pig is ok because i don't like pigs. No thats not how it works in the rational world. If you criticise someone for eating dog while you also eat meat then you are a DUMB HYPOCRITE.

    In India you have developed strong relationships with cows so by that logic eating a cow is worse than eating a dog.

    Please get out of here you ignorance fool- your ignorance is sickening.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnemyofState)
    Where u gone keyboard warrior


    Posted from u a hoe mobile
    EnemyofState? Your an enemy of intelligence never mind the state.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I have been told by various people if you leave pork chops for like two days maggots come out. So dog might be healthier than pigs but it's that in our world you just don't eat man's bff :no:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sough38)
    Some people do actually care about the animal that is on your plate yes.

    That's a stupid argument you are putting forward. What you're basically saying is that its wrong because i say its wrong because i like dogs better than pigs. The suffering of a dog is wrong because i have a dog as a pet but the suffering of a pig is ok because i don't like pigs. No thats not how it works in the rational world. If you criticise someone for eating dog while you also eat meat then you are a DUMB HYPOCRITE.

    In India you have developed strong relationships with cows so by that logic eating a cow is worse than eating a dog.

    Please get out of here you ignorance fool- your ignorance is sickening.
    Ouch, by the looks of it ... You're the one who is the ignorant fool.
    You clearly don't read what I sent so maybe I should remind you.
    I said, there is no correct ethical answer to if a pig or a dog should be eaten. In this current day, in most western countries dogs are more valued than pigs, hence why we don't slaughter then everyday.
    So please refrain from responding with uneducated stupid comments what have no sense of valid point. Thx


    Posted from u a hoe mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sough38)
    EnemyofState? Your an enemy of intelligence never mind the state.
    Nothing else to say? Guess I won then.


    Posted from u a hoe mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnemyofState)
    Ouch, by the looks of it ... You're the one who is the ignorant fool.
    You clearly didnt read what I sent so maybe I should remind you.
    I said, there is no correct ethical answer to if a pig or a dog should be eaten. In this current day, in most western countries dogs are more valued than pigs, hence why we don't slaughter then everyday.
    So please refrain from responding with uneducated stupid comments what have no sense of valid point. Thx


    Posted from u a hoe mobile



    Posted from u a hoe mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ...


    Posted from u a hoe mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anosmianAcrimony)
    Instant cash prize for a logical, successful answer, along with the horrible feeling that accompanies having just persuaded someone to start eating dog.
    Mores, perhaps born out of a certain quasi-ethical compunction to treating as food something which, in its household role, has been systematically bred over countless generations to serve as a man's most faithful, stalwart and unquestioning companion: to elicit, and echo by way of a conditioned (but earnest) simulacrum of anthropomorphism, the emotional qualities which we most cherish in our own offspring, and to the extent that any wilful corruption of that dynamic is inevitably equated with the most appalling barbarity.

    Granted, feral dogs are essentially fair-game inasmuch as they bear only vestigial remnants of domesticity; but a society which thinks nothing of quite literally eating its pets is one well and truly resigned to decadence.

    [A touch melodramatic, but that's all I've got.]
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnemyofState)
    Ouch, by the looks of it ... You're the one who is the ignorant fool.
    You clearly don't read what I sent so maybe I should remind you.
    I said, there is no correct ethical answer to if a pig or a dog should be eaten. In this current day, in most western countries dogs are more valued than pigs, hence why we don't slaughter then everyday.
    So please refrain from responding with uneducated stupid comments what have no sense of valid point. Thx


    Posted from u a hoe mobile
    Using biased judgement to justify something is so ****ing retarded. That's like saying 200 years ago it was ok to treat black people like slaves because the majority of people back then held white people to more value than black people

    Please refrain from trying to debate with me you moron. Your stupidity is disgusting..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EnemyofState)
    Nothing else to say? Guess I won then.


    Posted from u a hoe mobile
    You have as much intellect as a postbox.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sough38)
    Using biased judgement to justify something is so ****ing retarded. That's like saying 200 years ago it was ok to treat black people like slaves because the majority of people back then held white people to more value than black people

    Please refrain from trying to debate with me you moron. Your stupidity is disgusting..
    Are you trying to convince people or berate and insult them?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    We've grown an attachment to keeping dogs as pets and think they're our baes so we can't eat them. Similar to why we bury dead humans instead of eating them, I suppose.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's weird to eat kind of wild animals in general.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sough38)
    The question in this thread was not if its ok to eat pig then why is eating dog not ok. You were clearly trying to justify the eating of pig while at the same time saying eating dog was wrong for a number of ignorant reasons. I was just correcting you on
    them with facts.
    Wrong, again. I was proposing why some people don't believe in it, and if you actually bothered to read my comments you'd know I previously said 'if it was financially viable and socially acceptable and it tasted nice I would eat dog'. Please wither learn to read or try at least to read a comment before trying to counter it.

    (Original post by Sough38)

    Also if you don't eat meat you don't need to take supplements. There are many natural foods you can eat to still get what you need. That's why there are many vegan body builders (never mind vegetarian).
    And of course by many you mean a minority of body builders and athletes and yeah ever noticed how boring, revolting and repetitive their diets are, some of us actually enjoy eating food, we don't just do it out of necessity. It is a well known fact though that vegans and vegetarians in the majority of cases are some of the least healthy people nutritionally as they can't get the same proteins etc. from eating just plants. And shall we just talk about natural instinct for a minute, humans are biologically hunters, we have little peripheral vision for spotting predators and we have sharp teeth like K9s at the front of the mouth for attacking and biting, not chomping on grass.

    (Original post by Sough38)
    Yes just because people have a biased view that doesn't make them right. Plus most of these dogs that are killed for meat are not even pets.
    If you don't like the way society works then move to another country, really there are so many countries that eat dog or horse, sadly for you though there are no vegan countries, isn't it odd how even in undiscovered tribes they still eat meat though? There is no nonsense there about eating berries and nuts as alternatives to meat.

    (Original post by Sough38;67599590
    I didn't propose anything on this thread but since you went there:

    Arguing that living without meat is sustainable is quite simply ridiculous. We can live healthy live styles without having to eat meat and ironically continuing to eat meat is actually unsustainable.
    [b
    )

    Eating meat is unsustainable- it is overheating the planet.[/b] We humans eat about 230m tonnes of animals a year, twice as much as we did 30 years ago. We mostly breed four species – chickens, cows, sheep and pigs – all of which need vast amounts of food and water, emit methane and other greenhouse gases and produce mountains of physical waste.
    Yep, life itself is unsustainable though but that hasn't stopped us yet. But anyway surely the fact that they emit gasses could be seen as an opportunity to produce natural fuels that can be used again and again. As for greenhouse gasses here's an interesting fact the biggest green house gas is methane... oh no sorry, let's try again. (allow me to just enter a 2 sided monologue)The biggest green house gas is CO2, oh those nasty cows and pigs producing CO2 and humans too they're terrible people....Still wrong though. What you mean CO2's not the biggest greenhouse gas that most damages the atmosphere Mr Sausage? Why most certainly not. No the worst thing in the atmosphere is H2O. Pardon? You heard me gaseous water. That is the most damaging green house gas to our atmosphere. But it's naturally occurring and is as bad for the atmosphere as almost all the non-major pollutants together. In other words, yeah you're wrong again.

    (Original post by Sough38)

    Eating meat also takes up a lot of land. A human population expected to grow by 3 billion, a shift in developing countries to eating more meat, and global consumption on track to double in 40 years point to the mother of all food crises down the road. How much food we grow is not just limited by the amount of available land but meat-eaters need far more space than vegetarians. A Bangladeshi family living off rice, beans, vegetables and fruit may live on an acre of land or less, while the average American,
    needs 20 times that.Nearly 30% of the available ice-free surface area of the planet is now used by livestock, or for growing food for those animals. One billion people go hungry every day, but livestock now consumes the majority of the world's crops. A Cornell University study in 1997 found that around 13m hectares of land in the US were used to grow vegetables, rice, fruit, potatoes and beans, but 302m were used for livestock. The problem is that farm animals are inefficient converters of food to flesh. Broiler chickens are the best, needing around 3.4kg to produce 1kg of flesh, but pigs need 8.4kg for that kilo. Meat is also actually poisoning the earth. Industrial-scale agriculture now dominates the western livestock and poultry industries, and a single farm can now generate as much waste as a city. A cow excretes around 40kg of manure for every kilogram of edible beef it puts on and when you have many thousands crowded into a small area the effect can be dramatic. Their manure and urine is funnelled into massive waste lagoons sometimes holding as many as 40m gallons. These cesspools often break, leak or overflow, polluting underground water supplies and rivers with nitrogen, phosphorus and nitrates.
    The sheer quantity of animals now being raised for humans to eat now threatens the earth's biodiversity. More than one third of the world's 825 "ecoregions" identified by conservation group WWF are said to be threatened by livestock and giant US group Conservation International reckons that 23 out of 40-odd global "biodiversity hotspots" – the places considered most valuable for life – are now seriously affected by livestock production.
    Ok this time you have a point but you're arguing not that we should eat dog, but that we should not eat any animals. And we should not farm animals, but this would be terrible for farm animals who've been bred in captivity so long that they could not survive in the wild. But this whole problem could be solved if we enforced stricter laws on waste to prevent large amounts of meat going to waste, many Eu and US households still do not consume more than 75% of what they buy. There are large amounts of meat and food in general going to waste, we are producing too much to eat and as a result it is going to waste, so instead of stopping producing meat we need to ensure we are realistically reducing waste.

    (Original post by Sough38)

    Eating meat is also draining the world oil. The western animal farming economy is based on oil, which is why there were food riots in 23 countries when the oil price peaked in 2008. Every link in the chain of events that brings meat to the table demands electricity, from the production of the fertiliser put on the land to grow the animal feed, to pumping the water they need from the rivers or deep underground, to the fuel needed to transport the meat in giant refrigerated ships and the supermarket shelves. According to some studies, as much as one-third of all fossil fuels produced in the United States now go towards animal agriculture.
    Ok, again but still what is this to do with the pigs v. dogs argument? Are you saying we should breed our own dogs at home and then butcher them without electricity? It is true but is that a reason to eat less meat? Surely that could be significantly reduced by not shipping and just telling people to buy local produce supporting their local economy and reducing the carbon footprint of the food.
    As for the bits about watering the animals and fertiliser, does that not apply equally to the vegetarian alternatives? In fact some things even need to go through more production than meat does so surely to blame that on livestock is just a bit naive, and you've got the fact that pigs don't need tractors or combine harvesters etc. and almost all grain needs things doing to it e.g. sterilisation and crushing and making into flours or other products. And although this is only a specific example of grains it applies to almost all vegetarian food. So really agriculture is as bad as animal farming for fossil fuels, when was the last time you saw a solar powered tractor ploughing for crops?


    (Original post by Sough38)
    Meat is also costly in many ways. Polls suggest that 5-6% of the population eats no meat at all, with many millions of others consciously reducing the amount of meat they eat or only eating it occasionally. This is backed by new government figures which show that last year we ate 5% less meat by weight than in 2005. But the quantities are still staggering: according to the Vegetarian Society, the average British carnivore eats over 11,000 animals in a life time: 1 goose, 1 rabbit, 4 cattle, 18 pigs, 23 sheep and lambs, 28 ducks, 39 turkeys, 1,158 chickens, 3,593 shellfish and 6,182 fish. For this, say the vegetarians, the meat eaters get increased chances of obesity, cancers, heart diseases and other illnesses as well as a hole in the pocket. A meat is generally considered twice as expensive as a vegetarian one.
    Going into stats how fun. The only subject where everyone only has one testicle.
    But go on then that's literally just a food pyramid did you never do those in GCSE Biology? 11000 animals really isn't as much as it sounds and if you consider over half of that is in in shell fish or small fish and that's over a life time not a week it's really not as much as it sounds.
    And you've just told me that we're eating less meat than 10 years ago by weight why are you still whinging?
    As for cancer heart disease obesity, this is according a vegetarian society, you must consider they're gonna be significantly biased, but I'll continue anyway. Your chances of getting cancer are increased by living near a beach or eating a banana but you still do those things why should we stop eating meat then? If you really don't want to get cancer, try having the right genes, not smoking and not getting sunburned too often those things have significant impacts on the likelihood you will get cancer. As for obesity, have they actually made sure it's not correlation not causation? I mean this is not a scientific organisation we're talking about carrying out the investigation.


    (Original post by Sough38)
    Since when did we use what a wild animal like a tiger does to justify what humans do? wild animals also rape their own species over and over again so going by your logic that means that humans raping each other is ok. Your logic is just stupid and retarded and you'll no doubt contradict yourself by trying to argue otherwise.Also humans don't even eat animals that actually kill and eat others. They eat the animals that just eat vegetation. So to argue its ok for me to eat these animals because they eat other is just moronic to say the least
    Ok, again you have a vague point but still not a water-tight argument.
    Are we not animals too though? And we are further up the food chain. I'm really beginning to think someone failed GCSE Biology. As for your idea that you could use the ideas of a food chain to justify rape??? Now who's moronic? As for using retarded as an offensive term... well that's just immature and most definitely uncalled for. And you say we don't kill animals that are further up the food chain? Yes that's because we, being at the top have the advantage of being able to choose. And we know that it is more direct to get food from say a pig than from a tiger that's eaten 5 pigs as it would give us the same amount of energy, but in truth a tiger would probably eat about 150 pigs a year or 1500 per decade, which according to the vegetarian society has given it cancer and obesity and heart problems.


    (Original post by Sough38)
    The industry doesn't care about these animals pain at all. These animals in factory farms suffer everyday of their lives and they go through a lot of unnecessary suffering and they certainly aren't killed in the quickest way possible. Even the stunning process doesn't work half the time so they are lucky if they are actually knocked out when they are getting cut open.
    I have a feeling that many of the stats you're quoting and intelligence you're claiming to have has come from American sources in the UK we have animal welfare laws the animals don't 'suffer every day of their lives'. And they are humanely killed to prevent them suffering excessively, unlike in many other countries please make sure your information is actually accurate to the country you're talking about and as this is a primarily British site (although open to all nationalities) the key topics of this sight are British hence I am talking about British farming and we do not have battery farms and we are not even allowed to import from battery farms so the suffering of animals is nonexistent and yes of course they feel pain at death but it is so little and it is so sudden it is not really that bad when compared to something like the religious slaughtering of islam where you must slit it's throat so it suffocates or drowns in it's own blood.

    (Original post by Sough38)
    Please go and educate yourself a bit more in this area as your ignorance is pathetic.
    Yeah...no. I am not as ignorant or arrogant or poorly informed as you. So please go and do some research before responding. Or it might be as embarrassing for you for a 3rd time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BobSausage)


    And of course by many you mean a minority of body builders and athletes and yeah ever noticed how boring, revolting and repetitive their diets are, some of us actually enjoy eating food, we don't just do it out of necessity. It is a well known fact though that vegans and vegetarians in the majority of cases are some of the least healthy people nutritionally as they can't get the same proteins etc. from eating just plants.

    If you don't like the way society works then move to another country, really there are so many countries that eat dog or horse, sadly for you though there are no vegan countries, isn't it odd how even in undiscovered tribes they still eat meat though? There is no nonsense there about eating berries and nuts as alternatives to meat.
    Your whole rant is idiotic, but I'll just focus on these two things.
    (A) "It is a well-known fact...least healthy people" Ok the only place I've found this statement is in one poorly run, heavily criticised study carried out on a small sub-sample, after the original study carried out by the SAME GROUP reached exactly the opposite conclusion. And kindly name the protients etc which can't be obtained, because I'm almost certain they all can be.

    (B) "isn't it odd how even in undiscovered tribes they still eat meat though?" If the tribe is undiscovered how do you happen to know their eating habits? Also this might interest you:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_vegetarianism
    www.petaindia.com/blog/himalayan-tribe-vegan-5000-years/
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    That's absurd, you can eat dogs if you want, that's not bad. Every good meat that is eaten is good to be eaten. If you love dogs doesn't mean you must be against those who eat them. I love horses but I would eat one because I love meat too.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 19, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which is the best season?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.