Do you have objections to eating farmed dolphin/monkeys etc (3 Viewers)

[SnowFox]

its also not asking that

its asking whether you would have an objection to it being eated and farmed lol not necessarily you

Probably not, but until farming becomes feasible, then yes.

This reminds mr of abes odyessy for some reason.

 

[Yasser Arafat]

snowfox

mate

completely disregard the fact that farming is not feasible for now okay? fuck me dead lol

 

[Kwayera]

dude i used pigs as an example if you would read the thread lol

apparently kway doesnt consider them sentient like dolphins so its okay to farm pigs but not oversized water mammals

also i reaslise farming is unfeasible, i am asking that IF it was, you would object to dolphins being farmed

If it helps I also don't think farming of great apes is appropriate either.

Pigs are smarter than your average cow but they're not that smart.

 

[Yasser Arafat]

i read somewhere that pigs are smarter than dogs and dogs are widely regarded as highly intelligent (sentient even) animals so idk

 

[Kwayera]

This thread is a bit retarded shane, didn't read.

You picked the least interesting species to discuss.

Pigs are among the most intelligent animals, generally regarded as equally intelligent as dogs. Yet they are subjected to among the worst conditions of all farmed species. We would not tolerate dogs being kept in such conditions. Why is eating pig okay? Why not farm dogs and cats for food?

And on the scale of high animal intelligence, dogs aren't that smart, and neither are pigs. As I have said, pigs and dogs are smarter than your average two-year old, but that still isn't impressively smart. And pigs are generally not treated poorly, especially in Australia, whatever PETA would have you believe. (Maltreatment produces stress hormones which taint the taste of the meat; bad conditions therefore aren't good for business).

I wonder what the current laws are on slaughtering dogs for food? Seems a bit inconsistent to prohibit it. I should be able to pick up lunch from the pound, they were only going to be put
down anyway.

I am not against people eating cats and dogs as long as they are killed humanely, as with other meat-farmed animals (which does not happen generally to dogs killed for food in countries they are often eaten, like China and Korea).

Farming dolphins is far fetched. Minke whale harvest on the other hand, as undertaken by the Japanese, is sustainable. Tim flannery said so.

Eat minke, live.

Bit of a slippery slope though. I don't trust the catch remaining sustainable. Nor that it wouldn't expand to other, non-sustainable species. Needs to be heavily regulated by international agreement. Perhaps the taboo that exists on whale meat is for the best.

It won't remain sustainable because the catch would have to be expanded to become economically viable (the current catches by Japan in the Antarctic don't even come close to breaking even - heavily subsidised by the government).

 

[Kwayera]

i read somewhere that pigs are smarter than dogs and dogs are widely regarded as highly intelligent (sentient even) animals so idk

There's no evidence that dogs possess self-awareness or theory of mind (and thus anything we would recognise as sentience). The average dog is about as smart as your average two-year old.

Dogs are as smart as toddlers, study finds - Pet health- msnbc.com

 

[Graney]

Dolphins are overrated because by a chance of evolution a dolphins face looks like it's smiling from a human perspective. If dolphins looked like sharks, and were plentiful, everyone would eat them.

Octopuses (Octopi?) are scarily smart. They're demonstrated to have long + short term memory, excellent at maze and problem solving. If they looked cuddly eating them would be considered abhorrent. But because they're ugly it's okay.

 

[Iron]

but sheep and cows are gorgeous?
esp sheep omg. pant

 

[Kwayera]

Dolphins are overrated because by a chance of evolution a dolphins face looks like it's smiling from a human perspective. If dolphins looked like sharks, and were plentiful, everyone would eat them.

I don't eat sharks. They're endangered. (Which means I have to be very careful when choosing my fish and chips).

Octopuses (Octopi?) are scarily smart. They're demonstrated to have long + short term memory, excellent at maze and problem solving. If they looked cuddly eating them would be considered abhorrent. But because they're ugly it's okay.

Actually quite a few cephalopods are very smart. I'm considering cutting out calamari and octopus from my diet for this very reason, though currently there's no evidence that they have anything approaching sentience (this is probably due to lack of experimental data).

 

[Yasser Arafat]

okay

so mind theory = sentient being

non sentient animals = fine to farm and eat

sentient animals = not fine to farm and eat. why though? this is all assuming that they are treated humanely and shit

 

[Kwayera]

okay

so mind theory = sentient being

non sentient animals = fine to farm and eat

sentient animals = not fine to farm and eat. why though? this is all assuming that they are treated humanely and shit

Because sentience is the only limitation that makes sense. If in some wildly different future some alien species discovers us and discovered we were sentient but ate us anyway, you wouldn't be saying the same thing.

It's kind of hard to explain. Sentience doesn't just include theory of mind. Have a read up on the subject eh?

 

[Yasser Arafat]

Because sentience is the only limitation that makes sense. If in some wildly different future some alien species discovers us and discovered we were sentient but ate us anyway, you wouldn't be saying the same thing.

It's kind of hard to explain. Sentience doesn't just include theory of mind. Have a read up on the subject eh?

i read up on it and didnt much care for it

why not just use the easiest distinction lol

humans > other stuff

 

[Graney]

Is part of the reasoning for drawing the line at sentience, convenience? It's easy.

You are still causing unnecessary suffering, don't you feel any responsibility or guilt in that regard?

 

[Kwayera]

Is part of the reasoning for drawing the line at sentience, convenience? It's easy.

You are still causing unnecessary suffering, don't you feel any responsibility or guilt in that regard?

The difference is that I don't think that eating non-sentient animals farmed ethically causes unnecessary suffering. I don't feel guilty eating a steak. I wouldn't feel guilty eating a dog (though I wouldn't eat one as I don't eat terrestrial carnivores). I do, however, think that eating sentient animals is a bit like eating ourselves, except.. not. Sentience is really the only thing that makes us stand out from the rest of the animal kingdom, and given that in evolutionary terms it happened to us very recently, it seems wrong to eat an animal on the brink of sentience (or possibly over the line).

 

[moll.]

I only have objections to eating farmed humans. It's just not right to keep them in a cage for their entire lives.

 

[Iron]

caged humans have less fear of predators,
less disease from outside sources
lowered rates of cannibalism

 

[Graney]

The difference is that I don't think that eating non-sentient animals farmed ethically causes unnecessary suffering.

Of course it's unnecessary. You don't need to eat meat.

Also, you can't reliably tell whether the meat was ethically farmed. This paper documents how there is very little protection under Australian law against animal cruelty in commercial practice.

Farm animals are subject to exemptions from the cruelty provisions of state and territory laws.

There is a code of practice for farm animals which allows a far more liberal approach to animal cruelty- common farming practices that would otherwise be regarded as cruel under the law, and cause the owners to be subject to prosecution, are defended in this code-, but even then, this code is only voluntary.

Animal cruelty is well entrenched in Australian law in many ways.

Powered by Google Docs

I do, however, think that eating sentient animals is a bit like eating ourselves, except.. not. Sentience is really the only thing that makes us stand out from the rest of the animal kingdom, and given that in evolutionary terms it happened to us very recently, it seems wrong to eat an animal on the brink of sentience (or possibly over the line).

This is blatantly anthropocentric reasoning. Why is it wrong to eat a sentient animal? Is it because it is a violation of will? Is it then wrong to keep sentient animals in captivity, If done for any reason other than their own protection?

 

[moll.]

caged humans have less fear of predators,
less disease from outside sources
lowered rates of cannibalism

As per normal, you make excellent points my mysterious and metallic friend.
Kudos to you, good sir.

 

[Kwayera]

Of course it's unnecessary. You don't need to eat meat.

Unless I want to go on disagreeable supplements for the rest of my life, I do. I'm an omnivore. My digestive system is designed to eat meat. I believe we have been over this many times.

Also, you can't reliably tell whether the meat was ethically farmed. This paper documents how there is very little protection under Australian law against animal cruelty in commercial practice.

Farm animals are subject to exemptions from the cruelty provisions of state and territory laws.

There is a code of practice for farm animals which allows a far more liberal approach to animal cruelty- common farming practices that would otherwise be regarded as cruel under the law, and cause the owners to be subject to prosecution, are defended in this code-, but even then, this code is only voluntary.

Like what?

Animal cruelty is well entrenched in Australian law in many ways.

Powered by Google Docs

Quite ignoring the clearly biased nature of that document - i would hesitate to call it a "paper" - and the fact it rather selective in citing sources, I don't consider any of those practices excessively cruel, and most of them have definitely fallen out of common use. 1080 is not something I'd consider to induce undue suffering.

Farm animals are subject to some exemptions, yes, particularly ones that involve surgical procedures (mulesing, anyone?). I would very much doubt, however, that the majority of farm animals are treated with undue cruelty (and what would you define as cruel, in that case?). The only probable exception to this is battery chicken farming, which I don't condone, and which is, I believe, soon to be subject to stricter cruelty legislation.

This is blatantly anthropocentric reasoning. Why is it wrong to eat a sentient animal? Is it because it is a violation of will? Is it then wrong to keep sentient animals in captivity, If done for any reason other than their own protection?

And that is why I don't agree with keeping sentient animals in captivity, dude, as per a previous thread of mine.

 

[Iron]

And that is why I don't agree with keeping sentient animals in captivity, dude, as per a previous thread of mine.

Bc youre a Nazi incapable of seeing the value in anything you perceive as 'unintelligent'?