Wokking the dog.

[earthboundmisfit]

[bodie]

Dogs have 'personality' 

cat's do too

They can show amazing loyalty,  display happiness,  apathy,  fear,  fatiqgue,  anxiety,   seperation anxiety, excitement, even aggression.
They can be protective,  or playful,  and often display a willingness to please which makes them highly trainable.
Who knows what a dog dreams of?  but they do.   

They also have been known to 'sulk' on occasion. 



I could not eat something that displays so many 'human' characteristics.

Apart from the pig,  i don't think farm animals have these traits.   Pig's are highly intelligent.  They fall somewhere
between a dog and a monkey.  If we had known just how intelligent pigs were a few hundred years ago i believe
we would not be farming and eating them now.

[Binty]

A lot of farm animals are only this way because we bred them to be so.  If they hadn't been domesticated, who knows how they would have turned out?

And if we're going by intelligence alone, does that mean we should start eating people with low IQ too?

[RageBeoulve]

Good point. RICHARD! CMERE!

[midlifeaspie]

A lot of farm animals are only this way because we bred them to be so.  If they hadn't been domesticated, who knows how they would have turned out?

And if we're going by intelligence alone, does that mean we should start eating people with low IQ too?

Not a good idea.  I taste like soot and poo.

[bodie]

we got a temporary postie at the moment.... he's a bit of alright!

i keep thinking now,  of him on  'spit'

[Osensitive1]

No more gross than a quartered chicken, or a side of pork ribs.

What makes you say so? In my view, using an animal with a higher "sentience" is taboo. A chicken doesn't really think much of anything except eating and shitting. Dogs hypothesize, plan, and dream.

Because if someone finds eating the dead flesh of one animal acceptable and eating another unacceptable, it gives them no logical or moral leg to stand when debating the topic of eating animals. Just because someone finds one animal to be more important than another doesn't make it so. Anyway, my scoff at this thread is the high and mighty flesh eater attitude found, because PPK compared it to abuse and Bodaccea called the Chinese uncivilized. Everyone has things that they're turned off by the idea of eating, but it's not being presented that way. I don't like the idea of eating organs, but would never claim myself better than liver eaters. It's all dead flesh, and the only one I would believe for a second to be truly offended by the practice of eating dogs would be Hyke, because I know she doesn't eat animals; though she doesn't seem too offended.

[midlifeaspie]

No more gross than a quartered chicken, or a side of pork ribs.

What makes you say so? In my view, using an animal with a higher "sentience" is taboo. A chicken doesn't really think much of anything except eating and shitting. Dogs hypothesize, plan, and dream.

Because if someone finds eating the dead flesh of one animal acceptable and eating another unacceptable, it gives them no logical or moral leg to stand when debating the topic of eating animals. Just because someone finds one animal to be more important than another doesn't make it so. Anyway, my scoff at this thread is the high and mighty flesh eater attitude found, because PPK compared it to abuse and Bodaccea called the Chinese uncivilized. Everyone has things that they're turned off by the idea of eating, but it's not being presented that way. I don't like the idea of eating organs, but would never claim myself better than liver eaters. It's all dead flesh, and the only one I would believe for a second to be truly offended by the practice of eating dogs would be Hyke, because I know she doesn't eat animals; though she doesn't seem too offended.

I don't think I ever claimed moral superiority.  I simply stated that I found it distasteful.

[Binty]

No more gross than a quartered chicken, or a side of pork ribs.

What makes you say so? In my view, using an animal with a higher "sentience" is taboo. A chicken doesn't really think much of anything except eating and shitting. Dogs hypothesize, plan, and dream.

Because if someone finds eating the dead flesh of one animal acceptable and eating another unacceptable, it gives them no logical or moral leg to stand when debating the topic of eating animals. Just because someone finds one animal to be more important than another doesn't make it so. Anyway, my scoff at this thread is the high and mighty flesh eater attitude found, because PPK compared it to abuse and Bodaccea called the Chinese uncivilized. Everyone has things that they're turned off by the idea of eating, but it's not being presented that way. I don't like the idea of eating organs, but would never claim myself better than liver eaters. It's all dead flesh, and the only one I would believe for a second to be truly offended by the practice of eating dogs would be Hyke, because I know she doesn't eat animals; though she doesn't seem too offended.

I agree.

[Osensitive1]

No more gross than a quartered chicken, or a side of pork ribs.

What makes you say so? In my view, using an animal with a higher "sentience" is taboo. A chicken doesn't really think much of anything except eating and shitting. Dogs hypothesize, plan, and dream.

Because if someone finds eating the dead flesh of one animal acceptable and eating another unacceptable, it gives them no logical or moral leg to stand when debating the topic of eating animals. Just because someone finds one animal to be more important than another doesn't make it so. Anyway, my scoff at this thread is the high and mighty flesh eater attitude found, because PPK compared it to abuse and Bodaccea called the Chinese uncivilized. Everyone has things that they're turned off by the idea of eating, but it's not being presented that way. I don't like the idea of eating organs, but would never claim myself better than liver eaters. It's all dead flesh, and the only one I would believe for a second to be truly offended by the practice of eating dogs would be Hyke, because I know she doesn't eat animals; though she doesn't seem too offended.

I don't think I ever claimed moral superiority.  I simply stated that I found it distasteful.

Agreed. That's why I didn't mention you.

[Osensitive1]

You know what's funny? Someone read me my horoscope today and it said something about my opinions and hammers, those words. Should shut up and think what I think, and let others think what they think. Sorry.

[earthboundmisfit]

I think your opinion was entirely valid, and you made a good point. No reason to apologize.

[P7PSP]

You know what's funny? Someone read me my horoscope today and it said something about my opinions and hammers, those words. Should shut up and think what I think, and let others think what they think. Sorry.

Nothing to be sorry about. I agree that my view on eating dog or cat is influenced by the culture I grew up in. OTOH I have not made any pretense of objectivity in this thread.  

[Parts]

The town I lived in when I was young had a guy who butchered dogs in his yard and ate them   They had no law at the time to stop him and made several new ones just to deal with him

[Osensitive1]

OTOH I have not made any pretense of objectivity in this thread. 

Didn't see my viewpoint as objective either but rather yes or no. Your moral connection to the guy with the 100 dogs could inspire a very different conversation than, does one eat meat or not. Maybe next time though.