Quote:
Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+Sep 8 2005, 02:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ Sep 8 2005, 02:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Quote:
Originally posted by Reaper@Sep 8 2005, 02:28 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-troutman
|
Quote:
@Sep 8 2005, 01:52 PM
Ever walk a chicken or have one lay on the foot of your bed tending to you while you were sick?
No, but there are dogs that help the blind and police. Pigs that find truffles. Horses that pull loads.
|
I wasn't really going for the "animals that work" angle as much as I was going for the "companion animal" angle.
We eat chickens because we as humans don't socialize with them like we do with dogs.
It's the same as with cows. If people kept them in their houses as we do other domesticated animals we would probably never eat them.
|
As nasty as it sounds, lots of people eat lots of dogs. I don't socialize with dogs, so is it okay that I eat one?
Not being a pet-person, I maybe can't appreciate it fully, but it is my learned opinion that people are considerably more valuable. Judging by the spay/neuter campaign and what goes on in animal shelters, I think the decision has already been made.
Anyone who would save their cat over another human being is, IMO, screwy in the head. How could you live the rest of your life knowing that you let a person die so you could have a few more years with a pet? Talk about selfish. [/b][/quote]
I never said that animals should take priority over humans.
I was trying to show why most people make the seperation between animals meant for food and companion animals - How people can love their aquarium filled with all kinds of different schools while chowing down on Fish & Chips, How people can enjoy a big juicy hamburger after a long ride on a horse, etc.
By people choosing to have companion animals and caring for the animal almost as if it were a dependent child it creates a sense of familiarity and compassion for the animal. This familiarity and compassion is easily transferrable when speaking in relational terms to other dogs, cats and pets.
People see pictures of other dogs in societies where dog is consumed and they think "that's a dog, like my dog. I could never eat my dog because he's my buddy. I'll bet that dog could be someone's buddy if he wasn't going to be raised for meat and eaten." That way, they draw lines between the animals of the world.
"All the cute, cuddly animals that we like to hang out with or coo at like they are babies - come to the right side of the room. Everyone else go to the left side. Now, everyone on the left - you will be killed and eaten because we don't have to see you guys around most of the time so we won't relate to you in any other way than being our dinner."
It's a lot easier to eat meat if you don't have to think about where it came from - easier if you don't have to think about the animal having a face or sometimes showing characteristics that allow humans to amorphize them. Once you amorphize an animal enough it becomes more "human-ish" and you start to put the values we hold for humans on said animals. This leads to second thoughts about consuming the now "humanish" animal for sustinence.
I'd rather not think about market animals and how they relate to my dinner because I'm kind of a softy. I'm also a bit of a deep thinker so I'd rather not think about eating the cute animals. It's part of the reason why I can't eat market rabbit. I have a rabbit and to eat market rabbit would give me some sort of guilt complex as if Rufus (my rabbit) would have any idea what I've done or if he had an inkling of the betrayal of eating one of his cousins. I know, it's complicated and messed up - but I think we've already established the fact that humans often do irrational or emotionally guided things.
