Investigation finds 70,000 dogs killed in Bali each year are fed to unsuspecting tour

[Orange Joe]

Do you know this personally?

You aren't going to believe what I say anyways so here is this.

Pigs- https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...igs-empathize/
Sheep- http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farm...pathy-in-sheep
Cows. https://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-em...of-dairy-cows/


Not hard to find evidence that a great ranges of animals show empathy.

[Rhaide]

Who is this "We" and why is it being treated as a standard meant to dictate the behavior of everybody? The consumption of certain animals, consumption engaged in by the same societies that are generally involved in dog breeding, is considered morally reprehensible to some so your argument doesn't seem very consistent. Apparently, because some groups worship dogs, it's morally reprehensible, but if some groups worship cows, fuck them.

Your perception that my argument is inconsistent is accurate only because you aren't using context.

I LOVE hamburgers but I would NEVER try to feed one to an Indian person, just in case.

[Nitro Fun]

How can you be skeptical about someone saying they've had dogs before? I mean... Most people own dogs. I own dogs and have no issue with people eating dogs as long as the death is humane and not someone's stolen dog.

?????

Most people do not own dogs.

[Rhaide]

This thread is just full of edgy trolls who would prolly throw up at the sight of dog meat let alone play devils advocate in condoning it.

I could show you a video of some guy boiling a dog to death and i bet very few of you would go Hmm that must taste nice.

300% agree.

[Orange Joe]

I'm no bleeding heart. Dogs have been bred (a controlled evolution) to serve a purpose that does not include eating. We altered their evolutionary course to suit companionship, not food.

We literally created them to be friends. That's why it is bad - not some pointless ideological party line.

In the west, in the east they were bred more for food.

[Dequanacus]

When a situation is globally true, it is globally applied.

That being said, animals bred for food are different than animals bred for companionship. It was wrong to feed people something other than they were knowingly eating - but if the animals were bred to be food, that's a tiny bit (.00001%) better.

Dogs are not globally viewed as pets so it is not morally reprehensible on a global level. You can accept that they can be bred as food, but your posts earlier in the page don't seem to match that new statement as
"Dogs have been domesticated by human beings as companions on a massive scale to the point where that is their primary purpose. Killing a creature that primarily exists as a human companion is morally reprehensible."
doesn't matter if you can accept that such a view is not global. Feeding them to people without their knowledge is definitely wrong, but has nothing to do with the above quote of yours.

[Orange Joe]

This thread is just full of edgy trolls who would prolly throw up at the sight of dog meat let alone play devils advocate in condoning it.

I could show you a video of some guy boiling a dog to death and i bet very few of you would go Hmm that must taste nice.

Go see what happens in a slaughter house, then see how your burger tastes to you.

[Rhaide]

I the west, in the east they were bred more for food.

The east are sentient beings that understand feeding dogs to westerners secretly is disgusting

[WskyDK]

This thread is just full of edgy trolls who would prolly throw up at the sight of dog meat let alone play devils advocate in condoning it.

I could show you a video of some guy boiling a dog to death and i bet very few of you would go Hmm that must taste nice.

I've eaten dog. It tastes good. I can still be against boiling animals alive.

[RampageBW1]

I think I just found the plot line for John Wick Chapter 3.

Someone kidnaps John's Dog and serves up his dog as food. Outraged, John kills the people who kidnapped, cooked and served up his dog as food. And in a ritual of pure insanity, eats what's left of his dog in an attempt to be with his dog forever (or until his body excretes the food).

I kid, of course.

[Dug]

As long as they're killed in a humane way I don't see a problem with it nor is it the fault of vendors because tourists don't speak the language and thought it was one thing but turned out to be another.

[Rhaide]

Dogs are not globally viewed as pets so it is not morally reprehensible on a global level. You can accept that they can be bred as food, but your posts earlier in the page don't seem to match that new statement as
"Dogs have been domesticated by human beings as companions on a massive scale to the point where that is their primary purpose. Killing a creature that primarily exists as a human companion is morally reprehensible."
doesn't matter if you can accept that such a view is not global. Feeding them to people without their knowledge is definitely wrong, but has nothing to do with the above quote of yours.

Then I did a poor job of stating my point. A creature raised as food is food, but no one is ignorant enough to think feeding dog to Westerners is ok. They are not food to us, so serving them (especially in secret) is fucking horrible.

[Dequanacus]

This thread is just full of edgy trolls who would prolly throw up at the sight of dog meat let alone play devils advocate in condoning it.

I could show you a video of some guy boiling a dog to death and i bet very few of you would go Hmm that must taste nice.

A distinction exists between condoning the death of dogs and accepting that not everyone has the same love for dogs that most people do. Most people aren't so blindly loyal to their morals that they spout out nonsense when they find something they don't agree with. You can make a stupid argument for the right point which is what OP did. This was not a good action but OP's argument for why it was not a good action is nonsensical and stupid.

We could disregard that and just go "yeah this was bad" but you're on a board meant for discussion and throwing around buzzwords like 'edgy' or 'troll' that have lost all meaning by being used incorrectly so often only makes you seem stupid. If you don't like discussion, don't go to a place intended for discussion.

[Rhaide]

I've eaten dog. It tastes good. I can still be against boiling animals alive.

Your point doesn't mean anything, sorry. Manner of death has nothing to do with culturally perceived right to kill for food.

[yetgdhfgh]

You aren't going to believe what I say anyways so here is this.

Pigs- https://blogs.scientificamerican.com...igs-empathize/
Sheep- http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farm...pathy-in-sheep
Cows. https://www.wired.com/2014/06/the-em...of-dairy-cows/


Not hard to find evidence that a great ranges of animals show empathy.

And yet its still illegal to eat dogs in nearly every country on earth.

[urasim]

When a situation is globally true, it is globally applied.

That being said, animals bred for food are different than animals bred for companionship. It was wrong to feed people something other than they were knowingly eating - but if the animals were bred to be food, that's a tiny bit (.00001%) better.

What if dogs are bred for consumption?

Eating dogs is only immoral to those who deem it to be so. Your morality shouldn't ever trump anyone else's morality.

I think it's morally wrong for not disclosing the meat that they were eating, but I can only ever boycott the practice, I can't demand they change. Especially when it's not my country.

Pigs, rabbits, snakes, etc, etc, are all bred for companionship and consumption. Many of the animals we eat are just as, if not more, empathetic and loving as dogs.

[Rhaide]

As long as they're killed in a humane way I don't see a problem with it nor is it the fault of vendors because tourists don't speak the language and thought it was one thing but turned out to be another.

You literally just made up that the 'tourists' don't speak the language. Prove that it wasn't an outright misdirection if you want to make that claim.

[oplawlz]

Eating animals is eating animals, but it is deplorable to slaughter anything inhumanely, or to feed someone a different type of meat than you advertise - although the article mentions these shops have special markings, meaning it's the tourists own fault for not knowing.

[Rhaide]

What if dogs are bred for consumption?

Eating dogs is only immoral to those who deem it to be so. Your morality shouldn't ever trump anyone else's morality.

I think it's morally wrong for not disclosing the meat that they were eating, but I can only ever boycott the practice, I can't demand they change. Especially when it's not my country.

Pigs, rabbits, snakes, etc, etc, are all bred for companionship and consumption. Many of the animals we eat are just as, if not more, empathetic and loving as dogs.

I am clearly including dogs in the quote you posted - you seriously didn't get that?

[Dug]

You literally just made up that the 'tourists' don't speak the language. Prove that it wasn't an outright misdirection if you want to make that claim.

"Tourists will walk down a street, they’ll see a street store selling satay but what they are not realizing is the letters RW on the store mean it is dog meat being served,”

Unfamiliarity with the culture I guess. Still isn't some travesty that they ate dog meat.