See! They do eat dogs!

Krono5 said:
Herbivores are for eating, carnivores aren't -it's as simple as that. Dogs evolved from Wolves by being bred for things other than eating. So objectively it is infact sick.
Click to expand...

Pigs are omnivores, most larger fish are carnivores, I've eaten alligator and shark. Dogs are not solely carnivorous they are infact omnivores.

The only reason we as a species do not eat more carnivorous animals, are the risk of parasites and increased cost of feeding any bred stock as they require a meat diet.
 
I don't like it or agree with it and I think dogs deserve better than this. However, if this is what that backwards horrible country wants to do then we can't stop them.

They probably do a lot worse, too.
 
Glaucus said:
What Hunan traits though. I don't see human traits in a dog and I don't think they should be valued. Why?
Click to expand...
You don't see human traits in dogs, really? :p

Human traits to me represent the pinnical of evolution - I just like them and find such behaviour fascinating. Any animal that you can have a relationship with is one that shows the best of nature in my book.

Of course, we can go round in circles with notions of value. The entirety of conservation is based on the assumption that biodiversity is good... Is it? If so, why? That's a much more difficult question :p
 
Nitefly said:
You don't see human traits in dogs, really? :p

:p
Click to expand...

No, they are animals and like a massive list of animals can mimic certain parts of Humans. I bet a pet pig has most if not all the human traits a dog has, what ever they are.


As to evil china, they are still very poor and are going through the equivalent of our industrial revolution. Rights, H&S and the rest costs and costs a lot. Can't have them till you are a rich country and china are not rich, despite what you may think. They have huge GDP, but that's divided by an ever larger population.
It's crappy but that's the way it is, untill their average wealth per person significantly rises then they can't have as many rights.
 
Last edited:
The Halk said:
I agree with you broadly speaking Glaucus, but what about primates?
Click to expand...

they're still animals. Certain primates have very low population and I believe some have high risk of cross contamination with humans. But at the end of the day I'm very much.

If we eat animals we can eat any animal unless there's a darn good reason why we shouldn't, like it's endangered. If people get upset about eating a particular animal then they shouldn't be meat eaters. Sane as people who are clueless about the proccess of getting meat, they also shouldn't eat meat.
 
Why do you think endangered animals should be conserved? They are prone to extinction and should just die off in my opinion. Waste of time and resources.

(obvious Devils advocate, of course I believe biodiversity is a good thing, but I would struggle to justify it!)
 
The most concerning thing I have read in ages is people here saying they wouldnt eat animals with human traits. What this basically comes down to is someone saying that only things like you are worthy of not being eaten. That is, imo, a very prejudiced attitude.
On track about the article I too have no qualms about eating something bred for eating. I wouldnt feel bad about eating human if it came to it.
 
Glaucus said:
they're still animals. Certain primates have very low population and I believe some have high risk of cross contamination with humans. But at the end of the day I'm very much.

If we eat animals we can eat any animal unless there's a darn good reason why we shouldn't, like it's endangered. If people get upset about eating a particular animal then they shouldn't be meat eaters. Sane as people who are clueless about the proccess of getting meat, they also shouldn't eat meat.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I don't know that I agree with you now.

I don't think it's reasonable to deny people eating meat, just because they'd balk at bashing a bonobo's head in. I am of course going to the extreme end of the argument.

I think I'd draw the line at primates. Anything else is fair game.
 
Last edited:
Nitefly said:
Why do you think endangered animals should be conserved? They are prone to extinction and should just die off in my opinion. Waste of time and resources.

(obvious Devils advocate, of course I believe biodiversity is a good thing, but I would struggle to justify it!)
Click to expand...

I agree with you. How many species have gone extinct already? Billions? What does it matter about the others. Sure it'd be nice... but that's all.. nice.

People go on about animals going extinct as if it's an environmental catastrophe. It isn't.
 
Nitefly said:
Why do you think endangered animals should be conserved? They are prone to extinction and should just die off in my opinion. Waste of time and resources.

(obvious Devils advocate, of course I believe biodiversity is a good thing, but I would struggle to justify it!)
Click to expand...

Bio diversity ATM is vital for our survival. Break the ecology too much and plants won't be fertilised, land washed away and many other negative impacts. In the future that won't be the case.
Most are not prone to extinction other than at human hands.
But then the world would also be stale and boring and so we need bio diversity to save done of the winders of the natural world.
 
Glaucus said:
Bio diversity ATM is vital for our survival. Break the ecology too much and plants won't be fertilised, land washed away and many other negative impacts. In the future that won't be the case.
Most are not prone to extinction other than at human hands.
But then the world would also be stale and boring and so we need bio diversity to save done of the winders of the natural world.
Click to expand...

Mmm. I think the ecology would have to be really, really broken before we'd need to worry.

Tigers, pandas, elephants? I don't think they'd have much impact really.
 
It's not that simple, remove a predator and something underneath may not have a predator as such thrives and devastates the land. Many examples of this in austrailia where animals have been introduced with no natural predator and it costs billions trying to solve.
Everything will have a nick on effect, some tiny, some massive.
 
I don't think we're really in disagreement then... I don't think wholesale changes in the ecology are wise - Australia is the best example of it.

However if there's one particular species that's going extinct anyway... I'm not that fussed about saving it.

Pumping out waste from resource extraction straight into a river is just dumb. I just don't buy the hysteria that the watermelon type environmental lobby pushes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom