Killing dogs and animal ethics

We aren’t now living in the early agricultural period of our civilization genius. Their is no need to eat meat in a modern American context.

 

Whats that most philosophical saying again? Is it "It happened, its over" No no, it was "Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it."

 

How old are you?

 

21? Does all my logic sound like something a 10 year old would spew? Has a 10 year old worked in a slaughter house for 2 years? In modern age America? You can't even work at a slaughter house till 18.

 

I was just making sure because I didn’t want to waste my time.

That isn’t actually the quote, and the quote was made by the philosopher George Santayana who mainly focused on aesthetic philosophy so he is hardly a go-to source for historical analysis. All of this is also irrelevant to the arguments at hand (noticing a trend). If a necessity for eating meat exists my argument doesn’t hold true, no necessity for eating meat exists so my statement does hold true. A manner of circumstances exist that would likely allow the eating of meat without necessarily allowing dog murder but none of those circumstances apply to meat a sandwich it exists init’s current context. What you said (about ancient agriculture) doesn’t invalidate any part of my argument.

 

Saying there no necessity for something does not support your argument though. There no necessity for cars, internet, and many other luxuries in life. We as humans need a drive to do stuff in this world. Unlike other animals we do stuff for each other in masses. It's how our economy is built. We also don't like to lose any practices.

Since you like theories, here one. We have lost the practice of butchering and eating animals. We go into a modern age blackout due to an EMP(Electromagnetic pulse). We have no more computers in everything in the world. We still have people who know the practice of building them, but it mostly done by robots. Lets ignore the fact that the world currently low on NAND factories. Most of the farmers have lost the practice of scythe and mule plows, and are on an all time low as applicants. We would have to plant, tend to, and harvest these crops. We have 300+ million people in America, and 7+ billion more in the world fighting their own way through the problem as well. Since we wouldn't be able to transport goods as well anymore. But wait, there a move-able source of food, that can be there when needed. What is this magical source of food? This must be a sign from the gods. They have sent us life stock. Some of them are like, "But my morals tell me that this is wrong and that I shouldn't delve into this dark pleasure." Then everyone died, the end. (They wouldn't all die, there still farms, just exaggerating)

I know you're going to be like "This is irrelevant" or some crap like that. But I had fun making up this bull crap.

 

Again I think you struggle with critical thinking. If people needed to eat meat for some reason my ethical statements might allow for that, it is entirely irrelevant to the questions at hand.
My argument (again) is that meat eaters (today) cannot logically forbid someone from killing a dog for pleasure because fundamentally these are the same act.

 

Vegetarians try to forbid people from eating cows. Someone already posted a link to something about dogs, and if you go read the comments, people are trying to forbid it as well. If you can think it, someone out there doing it, or trying to do it. Also how the hell do I struggle in critical thinking? I've came up with situations that are actually happen and are facts. You just state your thoughts and opinions. Then try to ridicule the person that replies with no evidence against them besides saying that they don't understand the difference between; Normative Morality/ethics, Descriptive Morality/ethics, and Moral truth. No matter what you say about morals, they are always subjective. There is no one way your logic ever works out. You should be the one who needs to study philosophy more. I only been looking at this crap for the past few days, because all I give a crap about is reality.

 

None of these situations and facts negate my argument.
Meat eaters in a modern context eat meat and by extension have animals murdered solely for pleasure. In a modern context there is no need to eat meat. None of the situations you provided dealt with the consistency of modern meat eaters. I also doubt a 21 year old would say “I’ve came”.

 

Aye were at making fun of grammar errors.

 

I mean if you want to go ahead and ignore the rest of the post be my guest. I don't care that much about grammar like I said it is hard to believe a 21 year old would not know "I've came" is wrong ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

 

You looking at one small grammatical error as defamation to my argument, makes this whole thing a joke. So why even bother. You're just going to say its irrelevant, since the butterfly effect is nonexistent.

 

I feel this further shows you can't think critically. I pointed out the grammar error exclusively to suggest you might not be 21 years old, it had nothing to do with the rest of your argument. You bringing up the butterfly effect is a non-sequitur and strawman unless you are literally talking about a butterfly flapping it's wings leading to tornadoes in which case I have to illuminate basic truths about climate science (fact: tornados are caused by measurable climate trends and not butterflies flapping their wings).

 

I pulled up the butterfly effect, because things all connect. It's why I bring up the fact why laws and teachings have an effect on our morals, even though they are an ethic, and you proclaim that they do not have an effect. Wow my parents ate meat, they continued to eat meat with their kids, so you get the moral intentions that it is not wrong. So it goes to the next generation. This continues to happen, and we have this long as line, because people do what they know. Using the butterfly effect might of been too extreme and off topic, could of used "Chain reaction."

 

I have never contested that people come to their moral positions for the most part based on social factors and not rational inquiry, However we are trying to discuss the truth value of moral claims about eating meat and how we should treat animals.

 

Which is always going to be subjective, you should know this. It's just one side here is arguing with facts, the other using opinions. It's going to be how it is, because people dislike change. It's why we have generation differences, but that is mostly a modern time thing. Like we didn't have "Teenagers" till we knew we could market to them around 1950. If anything going to change, it going to be a slow process, unless a higher force acts upon it, aka the government.

 

This isn't true because we aren't looking for the verifiability of the principle we are talking about, we are talking about the implications of it.
The principle behind meat eaters is that it is alright to kill animals and make them suffer for himans pleasure, of we were to apply this principle consistently it would allow killing dogs. Because in society you aren't allowed to adopt a dog just to kill it society is clearly inconsistent when it comes to this principle. In the interest of consistency society should be accepting of animal cruelty (my position) or vegan. Note that I'm not claiming one position I'd superior to the other.

 

jesus tldr much. basically meeplord’s stupid if anyone was wondering

 

So, by your logic...

If you like cow meat, you have to travel to South Korea (where you can buy dog meat legally I'm pretty sure), eat dog meat, and say it tastes good.

...What?

Also Rabbit Stew is something and maybe more apetizing.