China starting to ban dog/cat meat

[iago]

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/09/cnn-visits-dog-and-c.html

I don't understand it myself. An animal is an animal, isn't it? I don't see the difference between eating a dog and eating a pig.

(flame on!)

[Sidoh]

hahahaha... the cantoneses will revolt. and probably continue eating them anyway.

I don't see the difference either.  I'm actually a little bummed they're doing this.  Seems like the equivalent of a PR stunt for a nation.

[Towelie]

hahahaha... the cantoneses will revolt. and probably continue eating them anyway.

I don't see the difference either.  I'm actually a little bummed they're doing this.  Seems like the equivalent of a PR stunt for a nation.

I can see the difference between eating a dog and eating a dog that is a pet , but yeah, in general I can't either. Same difference between eating pork and eating the pig that was a pet

[iago]

hahahaha... the cantoneses will revolt. and probably continue eating them anyway.

I don't see the difference either.  I'm actually a little bummed they're doing this.  Seems like the equivalent of a PR stunt for a nation.

Yeah, I don't doubt that it's political. I seem to remember that issue coming up during the olympics in China.

[Rule]

I think it's much better to be potentially hypocritical and not eat dogs and cats, but eat pigs, than to eat both.

I am very glad they are doing this.

[Sidoh]

I think it's much better to be potentially hypocritical and not eat dogs and cats, but eat pigs, than to eat both.

I am very glad they are doing this.

That's an understandable stance.

Maybe it makes me a horrible person, but I just haven't found any of the emotional appeals or morally-based arguments for veganism/vegetarianism at all convincing.

[iago]

I think it's much better to be potentially hypocritical and not eat dogs and cats, but eat pigs, than to eat both.

I am very glad they are doing this.

That's an understandable stance.

I disagree.. I'd say the stance makes no sense whatsoever.

If you don't agree with the moral argument that killing animals for food is wrong, that's fine, but what I don't understand is why people categorize certain animals as ok and certain ones as not ok (except in situations like endangered species, but that's different).

[while1]

I'd eat dogs and cats if it were socially acceptable here.

[Armin]

what I don't understand is why people categorize certain animals as ok and certain ones as not ok (except in situations like endangered species, but that's different).

I think you understand why, you just don't agree with the reasoning.

[Sidoh]

I disagree.. I'd say the stance makes no sense whatsoever.

If you don't agree with the moral argument that killing animals for food is wrong, that's fine, but what I don't understand is why people categorize certain animals as ok and certain ones as not ok (except in situations like endangered species, but that's different).

That's not what Rule was getting at.  He was arguing that even if it introduces a double-standard, it's better that a nation is `protecting' some types of animals.

[Rule]

I disagree.. I'd say the stance makes no sense whatsoever.

If you don't agree with the moral argument that killing animals for food is wrong, that's fine, but what I don't understand is why people categorize certain animals as ok and certain ones as not ok (except in situations like endangered species, but that's different).

That's not what Rule was getting at.  He was arguing that even if it introduces a double-standard, it's better that a nation is `protecting' some types of animals.

Exactly.  It may or may not be introducing a double standard.  Either way, I am glad that dogs and cats are not going to be eaten.  I would also prefer that pigs weren't eaten, but it's a step in the right direction.  Essentially, it's better that people do the right things for the wrong reasons, than the wrong things in a consistent manner.

I think not eating humans introduces an obvious double standard.  But I'm still glad we don't eat people, and would be upset if we started this practice.

[iago]

I think not eating humans introduces an obvious double standard.  But I'm still glad we don't eat people, and would be upset if we started this practice.

I agree, in a way, but at the same time I think it's easier to defend eating humans.

I think dogs and cats are an obvious double standard, too. Horses, too. And I think there's a lot of people who, if they really thought about that double standard, might realize that eating pigs/cows/etc is equally wrong. I could hope, anyways.

Of course, as I said, that's predicated on people buying the moral argument. But I think a lot of people do/would, if they'd think about it.

[Rule]

As an aside, I do understand why some animals might be 'ok', or 'more ok', than others.  Generally, the more intelligent and aware the animal is, the more guilty I would feel about sacrificing its life for an (unnecessary) meal. 

For instance, I value horses and dogs more than chickens, and I value chickens more than ants, and ants more than bacteria, and so on.

[nslay]

As an aside, I do understand why some animals might be 'ok', or 'more ok', than others.  Generally, the more intelligent and aware the animal is, the more guilty I would feel about sacrificing its life for an (unnecessary) meal. 

For instance, I value horses and dogs more than chickens, and I value chickens more than ants, and ants more than bacteria, and so on.

I think chickens are misunderstood ...

http://animal.discovery.com/news/briefs/20050711/chicken.html

Chickens do not just live in the present, but can anticipate the future and demonstrate self-control, something previously attributed only to humans and other primates, according to a recent study.