PDA

View Full Version : Eating cats and dogs



Oepty
24-02-2004, 11:50 AM
In the last week the SA government has moved to make the private killing and eating of cats and dogs illegal. It was already illegal in resturants and the like. I can see no reason why it should be illegal. What is the situation in other states? There was some opposition to the move with claims that the move was racially based.
Scott

arosar
24-02-2004, 12:08 PM
Woooo....interesting topic.

I reckon it should be illegal meself. No, no, nothing to do with fancy philisophy - just that I happen to like 'em cuddly creatures and I just couldn't accept killing 'em. But in the Philippines, mate, they eat 'em. Shall I describe for you the method of killing? I will make you cry.

Another interesting thing you mentioned was this biz about the move being racially based. What's this? Who said this mate and why? Ain't got nothing to do with this thing about multiculturalism again, has it?

AR

jenni
24-02-2004, 12:40 PM
I am with AR here - I know it is irrational as I am quite happy to eat cute lambs and fluffy chickens, but I couldn't eat a dog (I have one cuddled on my lap at the moment).

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2004, 01:52 PM
Another interesting thing you mentioned was this biz about the move being racially based. What's this? Who said this mate and why? Ain't got nothing to do with this thing about multiculturalism again, has it?

I reckon it does, presumably there'd have been an increase in the proportion of Australians who come from cultural backgrounds where eating dogs and cats is normal. In Australia where cats and dogs are pets, there are a couple of dimensions to this. One is cultural sensitivity (most Australians would be against eating either species), the other is that allowing the eating of these species could encourage people to kill other people's pets for food. I could not care less about the first, but I do think the second's an issue. If eating cats and dogs is going to be allowed here there may be a need for regulation to stop this kind of thing. Frankly I can't see how you'd do it and police it effectively, so I'm leaning towards "ban it" despite my normally libertarian tendencies - but I'm happy to be convinced otherwise and haven't voted on the poll yet.

Personally speaking, I like cats a lot and wouldn't eat one (not even a feral), but enough dogs have tried to take a chunk out of me that I'd be very tempted to return the favour if visiting a country where it was common and accepted practice. :eek:

Those who stage protests in Australia against the South Koreans eating dog in their own country are an absolute disgrace IMHO, and any of them who eat mammals of any kind qualify as closet racists in my book. (Ditto for anyone from overseas who tells us not to eat 'roo).

arosar
24-02-2004, 02:09 PM
Those who stage protests in Australia against the South Koreans eating dog in their own country are an absolute disgrace IMHO, and any of them who eat mammals of any kind qualify as closet racists in my book. (Ditto for anyone from overseas who tells us not to eat 'roo).

I tell you something strange. When I'm in this country, I got big probs with eating such creatures. But when I'm in the Philippines, I'm OK with it. Know why? Cos only poor people over there eat cats and dogs mate - poor things (the animals I mean).

I got no probs with Koreans eatings dogs meself. In fact, it's pretty hard for me to think of a particular kind of animal-based cuisine that I'm opposed to (for whatever reason) - except maybe whales. But I'm only against whale hunting, of a particular kind of specie(s) that is few in numbers, and not eating 'em as such.

AR

firegoat7
24-02-2004, 03:11 PM
Interesting thread.

Basically challenging cultural stereotypes and moral philosophy. So for what it is worth here is my 2 cents worth.

Culturally it makes some sense to ban the killing of dogs and cats for eating. If we consider that in our society it is generally taken for granted that they are pets. Most people in our society have had a dog and cat as a pet and would generally find the slaughter of such animals disturbing.

However, where does one draw the line. I and my children have pet ducks. I cannot tell you how disturbing it is to pass an inner city chinese restaurant with dead red ducks hanging in the window. I see no real difference between a duck and a dog or cat.

Furthermore, I have also had pet chickens, rabbits and cows as a child growing up in rural Victoria. Again living creatures who are capable of interacting on a personal level similar to dogs and cats. Yet somehow one species is edible while the other is not.

Now Scott brings up an important point. What is the difference between eating a dog as supposed to say a rabbit. Rabbits are generally more cuter then dogs. They are certainly generally less vicious (when was the last time a rabbit killed somebody and had to be put down). The arguement therefore that domestic pets should be culturally respected does not seem to cut the mustard, if only because we don't seem to be consistent with our measurement ie its ok to kill ducks and rabbits but not dogs and cats.Why?

So in summing up culturally there are inconsistencies in our attitudes towards which species of animal we choose to eat.

Let us examine the moral position.

It seems strange to me that your not allowed to eat a dog or a cat but you are allowed to gas,drown,run over in a car accidentally,euthinasia,hit,kick, and sell for a profit such animals.

Furthermore, we jail chickens,cows,pigs,rabbits,dogs,cats and monkeys etc for all sorts of scientific experimentation and cosmetic industries thus reducing their lives to meaningless misery for human consumption.

We also hide the fact as a society that slaughters millions of innocent animals every year including goats(hehe) for the consumption of food. Nice liitle packaged chickens,lambs,pigs and beef etc made to look nice and neat at our rational SUPERMARKETS ,coercing us into conformity, inviting us to share the pleasures of indulgence, death dressed up to look normal, when the reality of the situation is far removed from the final product.

So as a general question of moral interest. Can anybody here actually say they have killed these animals they eat with their own hands?

I for one have shot rabbits, broken their necks, watched cows having bullets put through their heads, dropping to the ground, then hung up in a freezer, whilst we feasted for a month, I have bared witness to chickens having their heads cut off. Why would I tell you this?

Well basically it amazes me how many people fail to recognise that they probably would be unable to kill a cow,rabbit,chicken,pig etc etc if left to their own devices. Yet it is very easy for these people to turn around and say "I eat meat,but I have never killed an animal" A strange denial, but so what. It really is up to the individual whether they eat meat or not, but, one thing they should consider is.... am I morally comfortable with the values that this sort of behaviour entails...that my friends is your choice.

Personally I see no real difference between dogs and say rabbits. Furthermore, I have no real problem with you eating your own dog if your hungry... that is your choice. I am amazed however with the sheer hypocrisy our society generates when it says..."Its illegal to kill a dog and cat for food consumption....but hey bugs bunny is in the local buther store".

Whats up Doc!
FG7

PHAT
24-02-2004, 04:16 PM
Personally I see no real difference between dogs and say rabbits. Furthermore, I have no real problem with you eating your own dog if your hungry... that is your choice. I am amazed however with the sheer hypocrisy our society generates when it says..."Its illegal to kill a dog and cat for food consumption....but hey bugs bunny is in the local buther store".


This quote above, is the nub.

I have been an abattoir worker and trapped and eaten rabbits, I have eaten most things, amphibians, reptiles, donkey et cetera, bar cats dogs and dolphins. I would by and eat them too if they were for sale. (Not so sure about monkey meat ....... oh OK, why not - toss me that femor).

If you want to eat meat, you gotta kill something - unless you want to wait until it drops dead of some disease :sick: So, be a human, kill it fresh and eat it cooked. Animals taste good.

Banning the slaughter and consumption of non-endangered species is STUPID.

arosar
24-02-2004, 04:17 PM
You're quite a thoughtful person, you know that goat? What about goats - you eaten them? I have. We have this dish called 'caldereta'. It's a goat-based dish. Uummm...YUM!

Look, neither logic nor reasoning have anything to do with this. It's just, you know, human emotions or some such inexplicable phenomanae that make us humans. Most people here socialise with cats and dogs more often than with any other animal. So it's easy to see why we'd be more OK to kill a rabbit, say, than a doggie. And there are others, like you, who evidently socialise with ducklings. Ipso facto, you get a funny feeling every time you walk past a Chinese restaurant. There's no point turning this into some kinda grand morality discourse. Best to say, "it just is".

AR

PHAT
24-02-2004, 05:11 PM
There's no point turning this into some kinda grand morality discourse. Best to say, "it just is".


BUT, by criminalising pets for food, we say "it just isn't". This is not a deep-morals debate it is a fluffy-cultural debate.

Forget your sausage dog, go for dog sausage.

Cat
24-02-2004, 06:57 PM
Surely none of us have the right to judge the dietary habits of others? We may advise a particular food may have detrimental effects, but what they choose to eat is their own affair unless it breaks existing laws. How can any of us be cognisant of the circumstances in which they have chosen their dish.

There was a man in the UK in the early 70's who was unable to provide food for his children. Out of desperation he cut of his toes and served them for tea. Genesis made a song from the story which made national headlines, 'Harold the Barrel'.

antichrist
24-02-2004, 08:34 PM
Am I the only one admitting to have eaten dog. What is it like?? It is very strong taste and pungent smell whether raw or cooked. It was served to me instead of pork but once anywhere near the nose one knows the difference. Will get back shortly.

Kevin Bonham
24-02-2004, 09:54 PM
firegoat's right that all kinds of animals can be kept as "pets". For instance many people (myself included) eat pigs, but pigs are highly intelligent animals that can make excellent pets.

My case was that if there is an argument for banning eating cats and dogs in Australia, it is in the potential for people's pets to be eaten against the owner's permission. I can see that that could be a problem with cats and dogs, but it is not a problem (as far as I'm aware) with any of the other animals mentioned - animals that are primarily raised for food but also kept as "pets", or animals (like rabbits or ducks) that are a bit of both. At present, cat and dog eating in Australia is legal, but if you wanted to buy a cat or dog to eat, where in Australia could you do that? Stealing someone's pet would perhaps be the cheapest option. But you can buy duck, rabbit, chicken, pork, lamb etc fairly easily so the impetus for stealing someone else's pet isn't there for those species.

If anyone can knock over the argument about the risk of stealing stray moggies for potroast I'll go over to the "no ban" side. Might not be all that hard to do, it's not an issue I've explored much before so I could easily be wrong here.


So as a general question of moral interest. Can anybody here actually say they have killed these animals they eat with their own hands?

I haven't killed mammals or birds to eat, but I've killed them for other reasons. I don't think I'd have much trouble doing it - but as I'm actually against the moral argument on this one that doesn't really matter.

Incidentally, a lot of the people who get sanctimonious about eating mammals and birds because of the animal's suffering will happily eat fish, or intelligent invertebrates such as octopus.


I am amazed however with the sheer hypocrisy our society generates when it says..."Its illegal to kill a dog and cat for food consumption....but hey bugs bunny is in the local buther store".

I don't think my argument for (maybe) making it illegal is hypocritical but in general I think you're right. A culture gets attached to and protective of its companion animals to a degree that is irrational.


Whats up Doc!

Nice to see one rabbit knows my proper title. :owned:

Oepty
25-02-2004, 01:13 PM
I am not sure what the final vote on the floor of the SA lower house was, but the bill passed. I heard objections putr the next morning on radio. The people who put apposing views was, Green MP Kris Hanna, Liberal opposition member Mark Brindall and the speaker of the house independant Peter Lewis. The argument they used was that Hindu's would be appalled at people eating cows and Jews with people eating pigs. Just because we might have a emotion against eating cats and dogs that is not enough reason to ban it. Peter Lewis stated that he had actually eaten cat in Korea.
I personally see no moral reason not to eat any animal apart from homo sapiens. It probably is a good idea to ban the eating of endangered species as Matthew stated. There are probably health problems with eating some animals that should be taken into account, although in Japan they have plenty of people die from eating the posioness puffer fish. It can be prepared safely, but often isn't.
My grandparents don't generally eat chicken as they have kept chickens, but they have stated that if they were invited to someones house who didn't no this and served up chicken they would eat it. I have also been served chicken as part of meat platter when I have been there.
Scott

EDIT: the SA Attorney General Michael Atkinson also appeared on the radio and called the objections to bill "barking dog mad". He was posed a question about aboriginals in the north of SA eating feral cats and dogs and he stated that the bill wasn't really meant to cover the eating of feral animals.

arosar
25-02-2004, 01:21 PM
The people who put apposing views was, Green MP Kris Hanna, Liberal opposition member Mark Brindall and the speaker of the house independant Peter Lewis. The argument they used was that Hindu's would be appalled at people eating cows and Jews with people eating pigs

Well, see this is what I hate. These people make me blood boil. These over-liberalised whitiese (to use PaulB's term) who exploit ethnics to advance their own stupid ideas. It's no different to them bleedin' heart radicals who say we should ban X-mas from schools cos musims might get offended. Fact is, Hindus, Jews, Muslims all understand our need to eat pigs, cows and celebrate X-mas.

Scott, you should protest against that mob and have 'em thrown down the Torrens.

AR

Kevin Bonham
25-02-2004, 02:59 PM
EDIT: the SA Attorney General Michael Atkinson also appeared on the radio and called the objections to bill "barking dog mad". He was posed a question about aboriginals in the north of SA eating feral cats and dogs and he stated that the bill wasn't really meant to cover the eating of feral animals.

Interesting. I hope the bill clearly states that.

I'm wavering on this one.

PHAT
25-02-2004, 04:40 PM
If anyone can knock over the argument about the risk of stealing stray moggies for potroast I'll go over to the "no ban" side. Might not be all that hard to do, it's not an issue I've explored much before so I could easily be wrong here.


Concider it knocked over.

Q. Is there a problem now or in the past, with moggies "disappearing?"
A. No

Q. Will this bill change the statis quo?
A. No

Q. Has the risk of moggies disappearing, changed due to the new bill?
A. No

Q. Is there any point in the bill being ratified?
A. No

PHAT
25-02-2004, 04:50 PM
The MP who put this idiot bill up said it was because, 7 years ago, some psycho bikies threw a live cat on the BBQ for dinner. Later it came out that actually, 7 years ago some drunken youths through a dead fox road-kill on a public BBQ and left it there.

... and we elect these F-Ws

antichrist
14-03-2004, 12:14 PM
If there is consent by all parties eating humans should be allowed. What is wrong with it.

Firegoat 7 said "everything".

Humans were headhunters from much earlier beginnings until recently, that is probably thousands of times longer than they were not headhunters. And that was without consent! So surely this is only a relative question that does not require an absolute answer.

firegoat7
14-03-2004, 04:32 PM
Everything

Kevin Bonham
14-03-2004, 09:57 PM
Q. Is there a problem now or in the past, with moggies "disappearing?"
A. No

Actually catnapping is an issue in some areas ... but ...


Q. Will this bill change the statis quo?
A. No

Q. Has the risk of moggies disappearing, changed due to the new bill?
A. No

Q. Is there any point in the bill being ratified?
A. No

... I suspect you are more or less right on these ones.

I've switched sides on this one, I'm not supportive of this sort of legislation until someone can convince me it's going to (not might) have clear benefits.

arosar
01-04-2004, 04:04 PM
Boys!! Exciting news. . .the thylacine has been revived!!

http://dailytelegraph.news.com.au/story.jsp?sectionid=1258&storyid=1131572

AR

Kevin Bonham
01-04-2004, 05:47 PM
The item has been removed, I assume it was an April Fools Day joke.

frogmogdog
05-04-2004, 12:33 AM
i don't keep up with this board but just noticed and read this thread.

it reminded me of a time my vegetarian stomach found itself digesting chicken about 15 years ago. i was visiting a poor rural village in latin america and the locals killed and cooked a few chooks as a gift for the aid group i was with. i felt i might insult them if i didn't eat some.

you lot should read "animal liberation" by peter singer. the organisation took its name from the book incidentally, not the other way around.

there's a steady trickle of research suggesting that increasingly unlikely neurological systems can maintain conscious awareness. i recently read about flies in new scientist http://archive.newscientist.com/secure/article/article.jsp?rp=1&id=mg18124345.100 -- or if that doesn't work then http://grimpeur.tamu.edu/pipermail/animals/2004-February/000068.html .

carnivorous friends want to know what i'll do when we discover tofu is conscious but i'm worrying about that when it happens.

PHAT
05-04-2004, 01:02 AM
carnivorous friends want to know what i'll do when we discover tofu is conscious but i'm worrying about that when it happens.


What is so special about sentience that you/I/we should not end it in another organism? Exactly what reason is there for making it untouchable?

I think you are mesmerised by the ghoust that isn't, that is in your machine.

frogmogdog
05-04-2004, 01:56 AM
What is so special about sentience that you/I/we should not end it in another organism? Exactly what reason is there for making it untouchable?


would you prefer not to be killed and eaten by animals?

and if not being eaten is good for you then why isn't not being eaten good for them?

my stance would be different if for some reason we had to eat meat but, as it happens, the planet would be in better shape if we didn't eg land clearing for agribusiness not to mention all those new zealand sheep constantly farrting. plus there'd be more food to feed people if we were all vego. it's less efficient to grow crops to feed animals which we eat than it is to grow crops to feed ourselves.

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 01:34 PM
you lot should read "animal liberation" by peter singer. the organisation took its name from the book incidentally, not the other way around.

I have. Cover to cover. And his expanding circle thingy as well, and at least one other book by him.

I think his work is important because it shows you where you can really end up if you take objective morality seriously. And to me that's all the more reason not to.

frogmogdog
05-04-2004, 05:43 PM
hi kevin

i suppose one day i might make time to become this board's resident utilitarian but unfortunately i can't right now. maybe that position's already taken anyway.

i haven't followed your views on other issues and don't know if you're an atheist or not. i think it's easier to accept singer if you are.

i've read a lot of his stuff and my main disagreement with him is lost futures. i think they do matter, but he thinks they can't or you end up singing "every sperm is sacred". most of the stuff people hold up as proving his insanity are either misquotes or, in my view, perfectly reasonable.

actually, here's a read if you're interested -
http://www.drs.org.au/new_doctor/73/Singer.html

Kevin Bonham
05-04-2004, 09:22 PM
i haven't followed your views on other issues and don't know if you're an atheist or not. i think it's easier to accept singer if you are.

I must be the exception then, I would generally be considered an "atheist" although the typical "atheist" is exclusively concerned with whether the statement "God exists" can be true, whereas I am also concerned with whether it can be meaningful.


i've read a lot of his stuff and my main disagreement with him is lost futures. i think they do matter, but he thinks they can't or you end up singing "every sperm is sacred".

Which in his case would also mean that every animal sperm is sacred.


most of the stuff people hold up as proving his insanity are either misquotes or, in my view, perfectly reasonable.

In terms of his comments about humans (like those cited in the article you mention) I agree. My disagreement with Singer is firstly that he is a universal ethicist and I'm not, and secondly that he's a utilitarian whereas I tend to consider utilitarianism as a basis for law only as a last resort.

antichrist
15-04-2004, 05:07 PM
[QUOTE=antichrist]If there is consent by all parties eating humans should be allowed. What is wrong with it.

Firegoat 7 said "everything".

Humans were headhunters from much earlier beginnings until recently, that is probably thousands of times longer than they were not headhunters. And that was without consent! So surely this is only a relative question that does not require an absolute answer.

Trent Parker
16-04-2004, 12:01 AM
I have never knowingly eaten cat or dog.

About a year ago an all you can eat restauant called Food Star (near Leumeah station) was shut down because it was found that the owners were using cat and dog and passing it off as a regular meat. I had only eated there once several years back. I think it was owned by a different mob back then.

antichrist
29-04-2004, 05:10 PM
In China years ago one brother had a restaurant and the other brother was the mortician. They stripped the bodies to their skeletons and put in the dim sims. They were beheaded for their beheadings (actually shot in head). I visited that city about two years afterwards and was told it was a famous restaurant when serving humans (literally and figuratively - for the slow ones, not the dead slow ones -- that's a joke Joyce - Graham Kennedy circa 1966 for the ones with one foot in the dim sim).

BroadZ
01-05-2004, 05:44 PM
the way i see it, eatin cats n dogs should be legal unless it gets to a point where ppl are breakin into other ppls houses to steal cats n dogs to sell off to the markets
just cause we dont like it, n would never eat a cat or dog, doesnt mean it should be illegal, what point is there to make it illegal? theyre cute n cuddly? so are baby lambs, n we dont have a problem with choppin em up n eatin em

IAMBETH60
21-05-2004, 06:52 PM
HELLO EVERYBODY

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW 2 BUTCHER
AND COOK A PUPPY DOG FOR DINNER ?

PLEASE E-MAIL ME AT : iambeth60@wmconnect.com

eclectic
21-05-2004, 08:10 PM
HELLO EVERYBODY

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW 2 BUTCHER
AND COOK A PUPPY DOG FOR DINNER ?

PLEASE E-MAIL ME AT : iambeth60@wmconnect.com
Does any church historian here know if the Lambeth Anglican Bishops' Conference of 1960 discussed the spiritual status (viz immoratality) of cats and dogs whose owners were in communion with the Anglican Church ?

Oh!

It's an I not an L

:hmm:

Sorry

[while ... (+postcount) ...]

eclectic

antichrist
30-05-2004, 02:12 PM
HELLO EVERYBODY

CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW 2 BUTCHER
AND COOK A PUPPY DOG FOR DINNER ?

PLEASE E-MAIL ME AT : iambeth60@wmconnect.com

They bash it over the head to make it all excited to that the toxins will flow out with the blood (or just to make the blood flow out)???? They may use a blowtorch to burn the fur off, which smells shocking. It was originally consumed mainly by drunks but some others are into it. When cut open after roasting smells shocking also. If mixed with certain spices that hide the very strong taste it is edible.

Trent Parker
31-05-2004, 02:38 PM
hmmm hotdogs? :lol: