/ck/ - Food & Cooking

Why is it immoral for me to eat people? We eat cows, chickens, and pigs and that's not illegal.

Because dogs are man's best friend and cows chickens and pigs are worthless cunts.

Even in Korea, household dogs are looked at differently from livestock dogs.

I'm sure you've raised a rabbit or dove or something like that as a pet, it's the same thing. It's a different relationship than if you were planning on eating the sucker all along.

its not, dogs just have practical use other than food so its sort of a waste to raise them for just that one purpose and the meat isnt too good anyway

because my dog is a better person than most people

It's sad that when the 1st world becomes totally vegan, we'll still have 3rd world countries stuck in their evil, outdated ways

As always...

I would eat dog.

I would not eat MY dog.

I would eat my CAT because I know that little fucker wouldn't hesitate to eat me.

>>4411408
>implying cats aren't attached to their owners

Maybe you just fucked up and failed to cultivate a bond.

In any case cat meat is undoubtedly disgusting. If they were good, wouldn't we be eating them? Pigs are smart, affectionate, intelligent animals and yet that doesn't stop us from eating the ever loving daylights out of them.

But hey, if you want to kill and eat your cat for science I'd love to hear the results. I'll bet it's gnarly and lean like rabbit, but with a funky unpleasant carnivore taste. No thanks.

>>4411406
I was undecided, but now I'm totally in favor of Asian dining practices. Kill everything.

Dogs listen to commands. Pigs, cows, and chickens do not. Nor do they care about us like dogs do.

Also, fuck cats and the sad bitches that keep them.

I'd probably try dog given the opportunity it's not really on my bucket list though.

I've had pet dogs that I loved and that but I'd probably feel the same way if I had pet cows or pigs.
I don't wish any animal pain or suffering but when it comes down to it they are tasty and I'm going to eat them.

>>4411406

>>4411421
That's only because pet dogs are trained.
You can train a pig or cow the same way, not sure about chickens but they are living creatures and deserve respect regardless of whether they are intelligent or not, no animal should have to suffer more or less then another.

>>4411421
>>4411405
>>4411383

>muh feelings
>muh companionship
>muh best friend

I live in Korea.

I have eaten dog a few times. It is bretty good.

Eating animals is what makes us better than everyone else. Why not eat every one of them?

Look if you cant put aside your bromance with fido, what the hell are you doing eating Babe?

>>4411438
>I live in Korea.
Lost your privilege.

>>4411442

How so faggot?

>>4411443
Well you are enforcing the reason as to why. God damn Koreans.

>>4411443
gang nam style!

Anyone have any recipes for Lhasa Apso? Either that or French bulldog. My neighbor has both.

It's "immoral" to most because dogs played a key role in human evolution and survival, much like horses.

>>4411412
Only if I have to. Luckily, I still seem to live in a first world country and have easy access to food, so the cat is safe.

Of course, if Obama gets his way...

ya faggots pigs are smarter than your dogs ever will be

>>4411484

All these people with pets talking about how much they love animals, do they realize that can of dog food they feed their pet is made from other animals?

>>4411484
Some people eat excellent cuts of steaks and some people eat dogs, I don't even need to comment on the latter.

Sage because I'm sick of seeing this thread every week.

>>4411494
You bet your sweet ass I feed my dog chicken parts.

It's not really immoral to eat dogs. It's just not considered acceptable. Objective morality is different from what society deems proper some times.

>>4411528

Thank you for a semantic discussion no one asked for or needed. You can return to your freshman year philosophy/ethics course work now.

>>4411533

Why is it not needed? Morality and societal acceptance aren't the same.

>>4411380

Don't you like your dog?

>>4411534
>Why is it not needed?

4 srs.

>You can return to your freshman year philosophy/ethics course work now.

>>4411509
>not a roxbury dance scene gif

>>4411533
>implying anything on 4chan is needed

>>4411587
>>implying anything on 4chan is needed

This nigger just went full Nietzsche.

aGAINZ
>You can return to your freshman year philosophy/ethics course work now.

>>4411545
I find it strange you're not answering this dude. Whether or not he's freshman philosophy, professor, or retard, you need to answer why you think morality is different from social acceptance.

Personally I wouldn't eat dog, because culturally and socially it's been made to look unacceptable and disgusting. It's not so important to me to change my view, so I don't.
There's nothing morally wrong about it, and if you think there is, you need to answer why... who's telling you? Your religion? Science? What?

>>4411382
This. Not taking cannibalism into consideration.

>>4411631
What if you went on a business trip to China trying to win over a client and a random bowl of food is placed in front of you, everyone else on the table digs in are you just gonna sit there and stare at it?
That's the situation I found myself in a few months ago, I didn't know what it was until later on when my boss told me.
It was quite nice but the way it was prepared it could have been any animal and it would still have been nice and not made much difference to the final product.

>>4411610
Yeah and you're obviously in the middle of your freshman college english homework.

And not the advanced class either.

>>4411656
Are we defining morals as a code of human 'right or wrong' behaviour unchangeable regardless of time or society?
I know it's horrific to suggest, but in that case, eating people is not immoral. Nothing in the natural world, ancient or modern society doesn't suggest that we don't just do whatever we want, with the stronger idea or person prevailing. In the case of eating humans, it's counter intuitive to every basic evolutionary principle we have... so it becomes extremely culturally and socially unacceptable (also to me- I think it's disgusting).
But lets say there was a famine, or we're stranded in the Andes in 1972 on flight 571, or a bunch of cannibal Satan fetishists take control of politics and our mass media/ cultural institutions. Who's to say it wouldn't become socially 'acceptable'? Many previously common sense things have been 'moralized' this way.

I'm >4411631 btw, and I' haven't made any other posts in this thread. I'm also curious why people seem to be degenerating into 4chan name calling instead of thinking through and explaining their positions if they really have that strong of an opinion about this.

>>4411688
Are you're saying it's not possible for people to think for themselves? I wouldn't define it that way at all. I also wouldn't say eating dog is immoral, but I don't find the thought appetizing, which is a result of cultural influence.

>>4411701
meant that as a reply to >>4411694

>>4411704
No, I think you understand exactly what I meant.

>I also wouldn't say eating dog is immoral, but I don't find the thought appetizing, which is a result of cultural influence.
Yeah, that's exactly right.
People can also think for themselves, and make their 'own' morals. But if you're talking about 'Morals' as something separate from culture, like some right or wrong we have regardless of what time, circumstance, or society we live in, then the onus is on that person to prove it. If you say it's because God told you not to (I don't follow a religion) then most people would say you'd have to prove there is a God to prove there was unchangeable 'Morals'. If you say that you don't believe in a religion... then you make even less sense, because everything in the natural world points to ever-changing circumstances and seriously... there's no morals in evolution. You'd have to prove there is absolute right or wrong with science- which doesn't make sense when you observe the natural world. The strong do what they want, or the weak (think minority lobby groups) band together and become the new strong. There's not 'right' or 'wrong' in what they're doing. Which ironically, disgusts me. The problem is whether that is cultural or absolute disgust.

Goddamn disgusting gooks. I hope they nuke each other off the face of the planet. They can take Beijing, Moscow, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia with them.

>>4411380
YOU LIKE BEEF AND BROCCOLI DUMB AMERICANS? THEN YOU EAT DOG!!!

>>4411380
>Why is it immoral for me to eat my dog
It isn't. People might look at you weird if you have a previous relationship with the dog, but whatever. Anybody who gets butthurt over chinks eating dogs and cats is an idiot.

>>4411382
>comparing humans to farm animals
Top lyl xD

As far as "man's best friend" goes, there are places in Asia where dogs are raised like chicken and cattle specifically to be eaten. For "intelligence", pigs are smarter than dogs, and we eat them all the time.

There's really no reason why we can't eat dogs, people who are "HURR MY MORALS" assume chinks and gooks just grab stray pets off the street when this really isn't the case.

>>4411824

Put a human on a farm, now it's a farm animal too

>>4411890
Cannibal pls go

>>4411875
i eat octopus and their the smartest animals around!

>>4411824

Well, um, cows, chickens, and pigs are all primary consumers and dogs are secondary consumers.

Because eating carnivorous mamals is never a good idea on the long run.
Pigs gets a free pass because they can be fed the same things as cows, also bacon is delicious.

>>4411380
It's not immoral to eat your dog. I'd try dog meat if it was available.

Now I wouldn't eat my dog, because he's my pet, but that wouldn't stop me from eating other dogs.

Kind of like how some people have potbellied pigs as pets but still eat pork.

There is nothing immoral about eating dog,
BUT it's disgusting to eat it because dog meat is horrible tasting poverty food, just like pancakes, or 5 guys.

A large portion of people's aversion to the thought of eating any dog, let alone their own dog, is that they've been bred to closely interact and work with people. Working animals aren't generally considered food animals. Take that a step further because they have been bred as companion animals for a long time.

>>4411984
pigs are omnivorous, cows occasionally (but rarely) eat small animals to gain minerals and chicken eat insects

also weird to do use something like that as ethical criterion.

I think its unethical to eat animals at our level of technological advancement. Not eating dogs is only a thing of certain cultures. Also because we in the first world threat dogs like humans we feel more compassion for them.

>>4412071
where's the ethic? It's sanitary. the higher in the food chain, the worst.

>>4411484
this is true btw, pigs are among the most intelligent animals, overall more intelligent than dogs. Of course the dogs will appear more intelligent due to his selection to react to humans and to communicate with humans

>>4412079
So you would eat a dog than is feed only vegetarian stuff?

>>4412084
intelligence isn't even a scientific fact, stop trying to push some of those hippy's PETA pamphlet in the head of people that don't know better.

>>4411528
>It's not really immoral to eat dogs.

wrong.
Our desire to eat a certain food does not outweight the desire of a conscious being to live. While I definitly would value the live of a human somewhat higher than that of a dog, we are not straving here in the first world and we can get all nutritions without eating meat.

>Objective morality is different from what society deems proper some times.

definitly true.

>>4412086
considering that would mean animal cruelty and sick creature meat, no thanks

Not entirely immoral, but it seems kind of wasteful, considering they're an animal we have trained for thousands of years for service. Eating them should be the last thing on the list.

>>4412090
>intelligence isn't even a scientific fact

Its a theoretical concept used in science and that does not make it not valid.
And we can make very detailed experiments which use operationalizations of that concept to see how intelligent an organism is.
Also as a general rule, large omnivores are more intelligent, because they have to be more intelligent, evolutionary speaking (see also bears, which are even more intelligent)

You obviously know nothing.


>stop trying to push some of those hippy's PETA pamphlet in the head of people that don't know better.

stop trying to push some of those conservative's teaparty pamphlet in the head of people that don't know better.

see I can do the same, but thats no argument.

>>4412092
I agree totally but it sounded like you are giving a technological argument earlier, and not an ethical one

>>4412091
I agree with a lot of what you said, any everybody in this thread that said "Objective morality is different from what society deems proper some times."

But can you clarify why "Our desire to eat a certain food does not outweight the desire of a conscious being to live."
Nothing in the natural world behaves this way. Is this your personal belief, or do you believe this applies to everyone else regardless of what cultural context they are from? If so, why do you hold that position, is it a religious belief or just a personal feeling?

>>4412109
>Nothing in the natural world behaves this way.

Using this descriptive sentence as a normative one would be a naturalistic fallacy (and btw orgininally the ONLY thing that makes the concept of "value-free science").

>Is this your personal belief, or do you believe this applies to everyone else regardless of what cultural context they are from?

I do believe that this law should be universal

>If so, why do you hold that position, is it a religious belief or just a personal feeling?

I try to base the axioms of my ethics on feelings but deduce individual actions/concepts of it logically from those axioms.
Thus my ethics are very similar to utilitarianism and infact I think everyone is somewhat of an "crude/intuitive utilitarianist". This means I favour an ethical system which is based on the thought that fulfilling our desires is a good thing, because it makes us happy, and we have to choose options that make everyone as happy as possible.

I do have the feeling that I want to be alive and from what I see of the actions and utterances of (most) other people and animals I deduce that they want to be alive aswell. And my craving of a certain food feels like a really small gain compared to something, especially something intelligent and aware, loosing their live over it.

>>4412098
>And we can make very detailed experiments which use operationalizations of that concept to see how intelligent an organism is.

that's not how scientific proof work. If you create experiment to comfort your theory you aren't doing science, you are creating excuses.

>>4412100
how is not eating meat of sick creatures not scientific?

>>4412121
1.let us define intelligence as the ability of an animal to solve different problems and learn new behavior.

2. we let a pig solve a lot of different problems and learn a lot of new behavior.

3. we conclude that the pig is "intelligent". Of course, as everything in science, this is not set. Maybe the problems and new behavior all were very special cases and in general the pig is not as good in "intelligence". Further experiments can try to falsify our theory or increase the degree of it's "bewährtheit"/proven safety.
0/10 for republican on 4chan's /ck/ trying to revolutionize science.

>>4412118
So to clarify more, you're basically saying you think all living things universally ought to have a right to life, because intuitively you notice they seem to want to have life. The most important thing is for maximal happiness.

But again, why do you believe everything universally ought to have maximal happiness? I know you say you *feel* this, but aside from feeling what reason should all things be happy?
Because if it's just a feeling, everything is just a personal truth, and not a universal truth like you're claiming. If it's just because of your observations of the utterances of other creatures, then again you're interpreting the utterances of other creatures as important. This is again, a belief that is either just personal or you'll need to produce evidence about why this should be important if it's universal.

It's a bit late over here (or early depending on how you look at it) but I'm interested in what your reason is. I'll be around about 30 mins longer or so.

>>4412091
for a subculture that is typically associated with nature-loving individuals, vegans seem to love ignoring the natural order of things

>>4412130
Btw I'm not the other posters who you're responding to atm. It should be obvious from my writing style.

>>4412086
considering that would mean animal cruelty
<--- ethical argument

and sick creature meat
<--- technological argument


>>4412130
>So to clarify more, you're basically saying you think all living things universally ought to have a right to life, because intuitively you notice they seem to want to have life. The most important thing is for maximal happiness.

yes

>I know you say you *feel* this, but aside from feeling what reason should all things be happy?

There is no further reason. Keep in my that we are on the border of possible arguements here (given the problem of ultimate justification).
I have to make a "dogmatic abortion", because the only other option would be infinite regress. But my dogmatic abortion is based on this feeling which I think every human being can understand.

>Because if it's just a feeling, everything is just a personal truth

As I said, ultimate justification and so on, at some point (even in science, were we have to agree on time and some form of world continuity) we have to set axioms if we want to say anything. So every ethical system has to have a basis. But I think that almost all humans in the world will agree to the basic principles of my ethical system, which are basal, and not derived ("maximize happiness", "equality" instead of "you should not kill", "you should not eat pork", "you should not fuck before marriage". etc) this is called consequentialist, as opposed to deontological.

A logical justification for any form of ethic is impossible. A thing is only rational compared to a certain goals and goals can not be judged rationally, only if we add infinite meta-goals. Thus, while it seem weird that I base my argument on feelings, there is no other way really...

>>4412145
But if we commit a "dogmatic abortion" and admit everything is based on feeling (which I completely agree with you, since I'm liable to do the same- there's no other way to phrase absolute beliefs), doesn't this make the belief faith based (i.e. gut feeling based)? This is because it's regarding an absolute truth, not a culturally engineered one. In that case, how is it different from any religious faith based belief (disregarding individual assertions about which God, etc)
This is why I asked you if you were religious. It doesn't seem that's the case, but in the end is it any different from any other faith based assertion?

Not I'm claiming that religion is bad or invalid. I think in a strange way if you have an absolute truth claim, being religious is actually the least hypocritical position to take, because it openly embraces faith based assertions.

>>4412062

>talking shit about pancakes
shut your dirty whore mouth

my grandparents and great grandparents survived ww2

they ate their pets

>>4412162
I am not religious.

And what makes me prefare my theory compared to religions is simply that it:
1. makes less basical ethical rules (as explained above, individual decisions all come down to one "root", whereas religions are deontological and decisions may lead down various "roots".)
2. makes use of less metaphysical entities (I only postulate the "foreign mind", time and world continuity whereas religion has those + gods, wonders, live after dead etc.)
3. these metaphysical entities are combinable with science.
4. those things combined make it more intuitive
5. the basal principles of it are ideas shared by all human cultures and everything else is logically deduced from these principles. this makes it less cultural/random than believing for example in Christianity.

3. is very important to me. An ethical system which is incompatible with science is nothing I would ever consider.

So as I said, we have no logical reason to assume my ethical position, but if we want to choose an ethical system after all, I have "pseudo-arguments" which will very strongly motivate the reader to choose this system over religion or an deontological ethic like the Kantian one.

>>4411438
I would eat a korean baby
my dog is off limits though as he's more intelligent than most koreans

>>4412171
I'm not claiming your belief is equal or worse than a religious belief. I'm just asking, is it fair to call it faith based?

>>4412171
diagramm to illustrate what I meant with the roots.

Deontology needs to refer back to a lot of singular, unconnected rules when assessing different situations, whereas Utilitarianism can in all situations refer back to its one rule (or two rules, if you split up equality and maximation of happyness).

I also added the rule "do not be homosexual", to show how deontological systems, especially religious ones, often have rules that are strongly dependent on the culture and do not cater to universal human needs.

>>4412185
possibly, yes.

but we would have to call science faith based, too then.

>>4412187
I'm very aware of what they both are. I'm just asking, how is the goal of making everyone the most happy an absolute truth or goal?

And yes, science would by that definition be called faith based. That's why I tend not to fuck with anybody else's beliefs on 4chan or real life. Because everybody is sailing that same boat.

>>4412198
Well actually, since you said essentially your assertion is faith based, that's not hypocritical or illogical at all. But how strongly do you tend to force that view on other people? Because again, the belief to maximise happiness is just a personal desire.

I eat chicken and not rabbit I'm a hypocrite I can't explain it

>>4412198
>>4412201

I would "force" my ethical system on other people of course and by definition, because ethics is the system which directs my actions and my actions of course can affect other people.

also I very strongly feel that islamism, radical christianity or fascism are bad, and thus I will try to work against them. on the other hand I will work pro feminism, equality of homosexuals etc. because my ethics tell me its right.
I don't want to not have an opinion on these matters just because my belive system is ultimately not provable (because nothing is).

>>4412214
>pro feminism
Just don't be a stupid fucking cunt.

>>4412219
shite I just burned my burrito.

anyways:
feminism is the radical notion that women are people. - Cheris Kramarae and Paula Treichler

all feminism =/= weird differential feminism which says all men are evil and logic is manly

>>4412223
aka, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_and_gender_feminism

Dogs have inarguably fewer uses than cows.

>>4412223
Women are people. Feminists are just fucking radical about it. So much so that they turn themselves into moronic cunts.

>>4412225
not totally.

some things of the broad spectrum of "gender feminisms" hold truth, too.
Women being treated badly even when equal in the law is a problem, too. It's similar with racism. And I also agree with abolishing all gender norms, the same as some gender feminists.


I'd say the 1st (legal) and 2nd (social) waves of feminism were good. Only the 3rd is shite, which postulates weird things about men and women and is also mostly postmodern.

>>4411412
>So, why do we love cats so much?
Because cat owners have a brain parasite.

>>4412214
If I were to define religion as 'any faith based system of beliefs' Faith based because it's ultimately unprovable, then I think we can both agree that we all have religious roots in our belief systems.

I used to be very strongly against religion. Now I'm a bit more humble about my views. Because in the end, they have a strong view about what will constitute ultimate happiness too. Both mine and theirs are based on our individual circumstance, culture, and gut feelings (even the bat shit crazy ones). It doesn't make them right, but it does put us on the same level, since if you were raised in an Islamic culture, the same kind of faith based feelings would be influencing you. It makes you think... are you at the pinnacle of understanding? Or has some cultural influence shaded some of your beliefs and in the future that can change as you learn more about the world?

Anyway, I'm off soon. Stay strong in your beliefs but stay humble. All the best.

>>4412258
Then good luck, too, and be critical.

I don't agre on the religion part, please reconsider the arguments I made for it.

The thing is that my conception is NOT "western". It is "enlightened".

The philosophy of enlightenment says that we should criticize everything and construct all our views from scratch, using ratio.

was fun discussing with you!

>>4411405
so is mine

>Why is it immoral for me to eat my dog?
It is no more immoral to eat a dog then a cow or rabbit. It's simply culturally unacceptable in the west.

Lots of bigotry in this thread. Let's not be such pretentious, egoist assholes, eh?

Pigs are closer to humans than dogs.

Either eat it all or don't eat any of it. I get fucking annoyed when people tell me they wouldn't eat dogs, cats or other people, when they eat cow, chicken, fish etc. As if it was some kind of magical spiritual or emotional difference between the species.

fuck you.

>>4411406
lol

usually meat eating animals like dogs and bears have unappetizing greasy meat.

>>4411380
Many people object to dog- and cat- eating on the basis of affection. The same reason they would object to eating family members, while some other cultures used cannibalism as a sign of respect. That would make it an emotional/cultural preference.

Other people object to it on moral grounds, since dogs are intelligent and, while perhaps not understanding death the way elephants do, they certainly understand it better than say, a cow, and so more suffering is caused to the dog than the cow by killing it. These same people would probably eat a pig though, even though a pig is about as intelligent or more so, making them hypocrites.

Other people would not eat it because it's a carnivore and significantly less healthy for you than a prey animal.

So there are 3 good reasons not to eat your dog. That being said, go ahead, I guess, if you're that determined. Have fun processing it.

>>4411382

you'll get prions and die, you dumb fuck.

These are actually really tastey recipes:

http://wolf.ok.ac.kr/~annyg/english/e5.htm

>>4411464
All that bro science, man.

Fun fact : eating horse is culturally acceptable everywhere except in the USA.

>>4412223
>anyways:
>feminism is the radical notion that women are people
That might be the first wave of feminism, but anything else after can go fuck itself. After the vote it's been a pretty blatant attempt at shoehorning women into everything, every job profession, no matter how physically demanding for the sake of "equality", on top of treating running around like a little whore and riding the cock carousel is a good thing for society. Traditional families took a shit, all women felt compelled to attend higher education and here we are in America with our ridiculously high divorce rates and stigma for unhappy marriages. I'm not advocating any woman be some 1950's stay-at-home mom type, but I think this social pressure for every girl to GET OUT THERE, BE YO OWN WOMAN, YOU DON'T NEED NO MAN is damaging and shitty is pitting the sexes against each other.

>>4411380
Kind of sad that there are dogs that are alive near the dead dogs. Kind of cruel. But yeah, emotional feelings for an animal would determine its fate. I wonder if anyone knows what would be a rough estimate of how many cows, pigs, chickens have been killed since the start of time? Anyone know how many animals are currently on the planet at any given time? I know there is chicken to every one human.

>>4413904
*one chicken

>>4411406

>>4413146
>raditional families took a shit, all women felt compelled to attend higher education and here we are in America with our ridiculously high divorce rates and stigma for unhappy marriages.

This is why I'm in school now.
>my family's face when I'm getting a Masters in Marriage and Family Therapy instead of something more traditionally masculine

>>4411380
your dog implies a pet.

a dog is just food

don't eat your pet. that would imply some homicidal tendencies.

not eating dog or cat meat in america is because some "person" decided they didn't like it and got a lot of others behind them and got laws passed to make it animal abuse, or some shit

>>4413146
Could you possibly be more reactionary? The human race would be better without you. Please kill yourself.

>>4414186
Bitter angsty feminist detected. Thanks for your well thought out response clearly detailing how wrong I was.

I don't think it's immoral to eat meat, but dogs are predators, and predators usually have shitty tasting meat.

I like the fat, stupid animals that eat grass and flowers and shit.

>>4411380

It is immoral if you think it is. I dont know what you think.

Are you trying to say its unethical? If so, is it really? China got over 1 billion people in the shitty country of theirs, and they dont think its unethical.

So OP, wtf are you doing here? Lost?