If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Telegraph)   TV chef claims eating puppy meat is no worse than pork, and also likely to fetch more in the market   (telegraph.co.uk) divider line 211
    More: Interesting, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, REX  
•       •       •

8412 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Oct 2011 at 12:34 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



211 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-10-11 03:35:25 PM  
I've traveled all over and dog meat is pretty much the only thing I've turned down, and I admit it's for pure sentimentality reasons as a life long dog lover/owner. It had nothing to do with how 'disgusting' or 'cruel' it is to eat dog as meat. We have little room to preach in that regard. As a child, I grew up around one of America's largest beef livestock yards, and nothing could be more disgusting and inhumane than the way those scabby, diseased cows lived their entire lives in knee high pools of shiat and piss, only to be turned into the beef on top of the super fajita nacho platters at your local TGIF McFunsters.

I know in the Hanoi market I went to the locals are very self-aware about it, and try to keep the "dog section" of the market shielded from the Westerners because they tend to stand around and gawk and take pictures. No one likes to feels self conscious about their dinner choices.
 
2011-10-11 03:40:30 PM  
Nothing like a fine Ghiscari stew of unborn puppy to fill you up. Best with jellied dog brains for dessert.
 
2011-10-11 03:44:35 PM  

Diogenes Teufelsdrockh: Nothing like a fine Ghiscari stew of unborn puppy to fill you up. Best with jellied dog brains for dessert.


Getting a kick out of this as I just finished Book 4 yesterday.

Damn, that George Martin sure loves writing about food.

/that, and killing off main characters.
 
2011-10-11 03:46:55 PM  

natmar_76: gshepnyc: No other two species on the planet have the relationship - including shared history and interdependence - that humans and dogs have. We relied on one another to get to the stage we find ourselves in today. That is more than enough reason not to eat a dog.

What an overstatement, and not remotely true.

If anything, the most valuable animal to humanity is cattle. While dogs were sniffing each other's butts in the jungle, humans had domesticated cattle and were using them to plow farms, using them for milk and sustenance, eating them when they grew old, and using their skins for clothing. Entire nations have been fed on cattle meat while dogs sat around doing not much of anything.

Other animals such as horses have been just as important, if not much more important, as travel and war companions. When was the last time you heard about a famed dog cavalry breaking the lines of an enemy army? Yeah, you didn't, because it was horses that threw themselves onto pikes because of the relations that they formed with their human masters.

Cats have been just as important. Who have people turned to consistently for pest control, to kill rats on farms? That's right, cats, because dogs are too dumb to catch mice.

You can like dogs all you want, but claiming they've helped humanity evolve is patently ridiculous.


Link (new window)
 
2011-10-11 03:47:38 PM  

Tax Boy: Getting a kick out of this as I just finished Book 4 yesterday.

Damn, that George Martin sure loves writing about food.

/that, and killing off main characters.


When you write a war based epic with 20 main characters, some of them got to go within the span of 4,000 pages.
 
2011-10-11 04:01:16 PM  
i approve of eating these puppies.

www.aldenteblog.com
 
2011-10-11 04:15:19 PM  
Hugh Fearnly-Whittingstall (or as I prefer to call him Huge Furry-shiattingstool) is a legend. He is one of the few people who talks sense about food on the TV in the UK.

I remember an excellent episode of his show where he was trying to decide which of his 3 pigs to send for slaughter. He was very emotional as he tried to explain the decision, bearing in mind that he had bought and raised them for food, but how he had grown close to them the more time he spent with them....that they all had personalities and that he couldn't choose which one to kill....... and then one of them bit him and he just said, "Well that's the decision made then", and off it went to become sausages.

He also took a squeamish girl who only ate supermarket meat and trained her as a really competent butcher.
 
2011-10-11 04:15:34 PM  
i1136.photobucket.com
 
2011-10-11 04:32:02 PM  
Roast Pig:

benignhumor.files.wordpress.com

It's okay...he's smiling...

Roast Dog:

images.travelpod.com

It's okay....he's smiling as well.

Different cultures eat different animals/insects....it's not a big deal.

farm3.static.flickr.com

Oh-No!!!!
 
2011-10-11 04:39:28 PM  
icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com
 
2011-10-11 04:45:46 PM  
qpups.net
 
2011-10-11 04:57:54 PM  
It's almost like you have to kill animals to eat meat.
 
2011-10-11 05:00:08 PM  
When I attended sheep herding school, I learned an important lesson--never name your dinner. Once you become emotionally attached to something, it's very hard to see it as a consumable.

To the person way upthread somewhere who thinks only cats can catch mice, you ought to research terriers. There's a reason there are so many dog breeds and vermin control is one of them.

I'll pass on the dogmeat, thanks. Could go for some nice, tasty lamb though.
 
2011-10-11 05:01:02 PM  
I don't care if a pig can do differential calculus, I love pork.
 
2011-10-11 05:01:28 PM  

RoLleRKoaSTeR: But we need an emergency food supply:

[oishiianime.com image 480x355]


Menchi! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
 
2011-10-11 05:01:29 PM  

wildstarr: natmar_76: I love all the counter-arguments, which boil down basically to "nu uh, dogs rule, dogs were first". Cows or dogs first, the point is the same.

Dogs being first means shiat. Dogs didn't descend out of heaven and choose humans to live with because it was a holy ordained special magic event. We domesticated every domesticated species because we could, because we are smarter, because we are better than animals.

Dogs smell like shiat. They aren't that smart. Love them all you want (yuck), but they deserve no special ranking above cows, dolphins, cats, pigs, or any other animal.

Muscle is meat. There is nothing wrong with eating it (assuming you believe eating some types of meat is not wrong). Until you can provide a logical, reasonable proof that there is a significant moral difference (ex. humans, normally) between dog meat and the meat of dolphins or pigs, then you are wrong and not worth listening to.

Cry about it, dog lovers.

I agree with you on the meat is meat.

What I have a problem with is you seem to ignore what the dog has done throughout its 15,000 year relationship with man. And to say dogs are not smart just helps demonstration your ignorance.


I don't believe he mentioned that. I believe he mentioned that there are plenty of animals that have had close ties to human evolution since the very first human settlements and have cognitive abilities equal or better than dogs. Yet we blindly eat them with moral impunity.

And yes, it does make one kinda ticked to listen to emotional knee-jerk reactions disguised as some kind of scientific accuracy.
 
2011-10-11 05:05:11 PM  

jgilb: natmar_76: gshepnyc: No other two species on the planet have the relationship - including shared history and interdependence - that humans and dogs have. We relied on one another to get to the stage we find ourselves in today. That is more than enough reason not to eat a dog.

What an overstatement, and not remotely true.

If anything, the most valuable animal to humanity is cattle. While dogs were sniffing each other's butts in the jungle, humans had domesticated cattle and were using them to plow farms, using them for milk and sustenance, eating them when they grew old, and using their skins for clothing. Entire nations have been fed on cattle meat while dogs sat around doing not much of anything.

Other animals such as horses have been just as important, if not much more important, as travel and war companions. When was the last time you heard about a famed dog cavalry breaking the lines of an enemy army? Yeah, you didn't, because it was horses that threw themselves onto pikes because of the relations that they formed with their human masters.

Cats have been just as important. Who have people turned to consistently for pest control, to kill rats on farms? That's right, cats, because dogs are too dumb to catch mice.

You can like dogs all you want, but claiming they've helped humanity evolve is patently ridiculous.

Link (new window)


"Dogs, cats, cows and other domesticated animals played a key role in human evolution, according to a theory being published by paleoanthropologist Pat Shipman of Penn State University."

The inconsistency here is staggering.
 
2011-10-11 05:07:10 PM  
so, a newbie vegetarian with a new veggie cookbook coming out, stirs controversy by comparing eating pig with eating dog. *yawn*
 
2011-10-11 05:09:01 PM  
Most breeds of dogs aren't bred for flavor like pigs. But if it's tasty, I'll eat it.

Conversely, I'd love a trend of breeding various livestock as pets. Perhaps they'll have a strain of pigs.
 
2011-10-11 05:24:24 PM  

imgod2u: Most breeds of dogs aren't bred for flavor like pigs. But if it's tasty, I'll eat it.

Conversely, I'd love a trend of breeding various livestock as pets. Perhaps they'll have a strain of pigs.


It would be cool if you could cross a pot bellied pig with an elephant and have little pot bellied elephants.
 
2011-10-11 05:26:28 PM  
I feel emotionally vulnerable right now. I love animals so so much. I also love eating meat. I choose to look the other way when I'm digging into some delicious fried chicken. I wish the world were perfect, free of pain & cruelty.
 
2011-10-11 05:49:01 PM  
Dog is man's best friend.
 
2011-10-11 05:52:33 PM  

Sick and Tired of Being Sick and Tired: gwendolyyyn: Eat what you will, but please don't torture your food beforehand. It's just not necessary. We're better than that.

This pretty much sums it up for me. Just because we're gonna kill something to consume its flesh doesn't mean we gotta be cruel to it beforehand.


Yep, same here.
 
2011-10-11 05:56:51 PM  

jst3p: It would be cool if you could cross a pot bellied pig with an elephant and have little pot bellied elephants.


A pig and an elephant DNA just won't match.
 
2011-10-11 05:57:00 PM  

jst3p: imgod2u: Most breeds of dogs aren't bred for flavor like pigs. But if it's tasty, I'll eat it.

Conversely, I'd love a trend of breeding various livestock as pets. Perhaps they'll have a strain of pigs.

It would be cool if you could cross a pot bellied pig with an elephant and have little pot bellied elephants.


I wonder what elephants taste like....
 
2011-10-11 06:06:43 PM  
This is somewhat related to the thread, but american meat choices is pretty weak. Pork, beef, chicken, fish. You can't buy deer, rabbit, alligator, bison in most stores, and if you can, they are WAY out-priced by the big four. Venison, rabbit and alligator or bison are high protein, low fat, and absolutely delicious.

And mutton and/or lamb. LOVE it. My wife has never had it outside of gyros, which doesn't really count. $12.99 for approx 12 oz. of bone-in chop. Fark that.

And I would eat dog, no problem. Just not my dog.
 
2011-10-11 06:18:06 PM  

R.A.Danny: jst3p: It would be cool if you could cross a pot bellied pig with an elephant and have little pot bellied elephants.

A pig and an elephant DNA just won't match splice .

 
2011-10-11 06:22:37 PM  

jst3p: R.A.Danny: jst3p: It would be cool if you could cross a pot bellied pig with an elephant and have little pot bellied elephants.

A pig and an elephant DNA just won't match splice .


southparkstudios-intl.mtvnimages.com
 
2011-10-11 06:57:16 PM  

jst3p: R.A.Danny: jst3p: It would be cool if you could cross a pot bellied pig with an elephant and have little pot bellied elephants.

A pig and an elephant DNA just won't match splice .


My favorite Loverboy song!
 
2011-10-11 07:35:51 PM  

Cythraul: R.A.Danny: Logically this planet would be better off with 75% fewer humans. Why must we be such hypocrites?

Are you suggesting we start to eat other people?


If this is an example of one of the people that needs an eating, then yes.

farm3.static.flickr.com
 
2011-10-11 10:37:40 PM  
Hey guys, anyone hungry?

i1.trekearth.com
 
2011-10-12 12:27:06 AM  
This just in : most people do whatever the hell they feel like and then rationalize it afterwards. There is really no right or wrong involved, just "We've always done it like this." and "I do what I want."
 
2011-10-12 12:52:45 AM  

natmar_76: Hey guys, anyone hungry?

[i1.trekearth.com image 640x511]


Nah, I just ate chinese... but give me 20 min or so, I'll probably want another one then
 
2011-10-12 12:56:44 AM  
My meat choices are purely based on emotion, not logic.

I don't eat pigs because I think they are intelligent and possibly unclean, and I confess I think they're cute. Same with dogs and cats, and I can't bring myself to eat goat or mutton, either.

I eat chickens because my family used to raise them, and man, are they dumb. Poultry in general, I'm okay with.

I don't believe that fish or shellfish are intelligent, either, so down the hatch they go.

I'm okay with eating wild game when it's used to control overpopulation. Same with cruelty-free beef.

Beef itself is an odd one. Following my "logic" (ie: emotions) above, I should want to avoid it, too, but I don't. Partly, I think, it's because it barely resembles its animal. Partly, it's because I've never been emotionally attached to cows. Partly, it's because when I was in my vegetarian and vegan years, beef was the one meat I constantly craved. I try to buy organic, grain-fed, all that, but deep down I know I am a hypocrite. :(
 
2011-10-12 02:48:44 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Congratulations on proving morality is relative. Now go eat puppy while you learn that bucking societal norms has consequences. You are free to do anything you want within the law. It doesn't make them all things you SHOULD do.


Trying to figure out what this comment means. How did someone show morality is relative, and what is immoral about eating one kind of animal? Either its immoral to eat animals or its not.
 
2011-10-12 02:52:42 AM  

R.A.Danny: RexTalionis: Pigs are smart animals (smarter than a dog, anyway) with real personalities. I don't see how one can logically support eating pork and be against eating a dog.

Why does logic need to be part of this? Logically we shouldn't put emotion into what we eat, yet that is what PETA does on a daily basis. I adore dogs, I don't care about pigs. 100% emotional.


The objection to eating meat is often a moral one. People may feel emotionally about it, but that is not the basis for the judgment. Logic should absolutely be a part of rational decisions.
 
2011-10-12 03:05:17 AM  
 
2011-10-12 04:39:14 AM  

PC LOAD LETTER: Congratulations on proving morality is relative.


I've tried to make that point before to people. No one can seem to get it through their heads. People seem stuck on the idea that there is a universal, unchanging "good" and "evil" and everyone sees it the same way they do.
 
2011-10-12 05:01:52 AM  

CtrlAltDestroy: PC LOAD LETTER: Congratulations on proving morality is relative.

I've tried to make that point before to people. No one can seem to get it through their heads. People seem stuck on the idea that there is a universal, unchanging "good" and "evil" and everyone sees it the same way they do.


People can't get it through their heads because moral relativism is not an attractive position for most people. Certain actions and events seem incontrovertibly wrong, regardless of what ones society or religion my encourage.

But back to the main point, no one has "proved" morality is relative, and of course people are sticking to their moral convictions. Those are probably some of the deepest convictions people have.
 
2011-10-12 05:04:40 AM  

rprygro: PC LOAD LETTER: Congratulations on proving morality is relative. Now go eat puppy while you learn that bucking societal norms has consequences. You are free to do anything you want within the law. It doesn't make them all things you SHOULD do.

Trying to figure out what this comment means. How did someone show morality is relative, and what is immoral about eating one kind of animal? Either its immoral to eat animals or its not.


Some people see it as immoral to eat dogs. Other's do not. Forest for the trees, bro.

imgod2u: I don't believe he mentioned that. I believe he mentioned that there are plenty of animals that have had close ties to human evolution since the very first human settlements and have cognitive abilities equal or better than dogs. Yet we blindly eat them with moral impunity.

And yes, it does make one kinda ticked to listen to emotional knee-jerk reactions disguised as some kind of scientific accuracy.


He is indeed making solid points. But people's emotional attachment blinds them to what they don't want to be true.

Dog lovers weird me out. I don't mean dog owners, but dog lovers. They seem to hold dogs as living gods and have a bizarre fervent passion for them that rivals that of deranged stalkers. They seem to view them as more important, more valuable, and more virtuous than anything else on the plant, their own existence included. It's creepy.
 
2011-10-12 05:09:08 AM  

rprygro: People can't get it through their heads because moral relativism is not an attractive position for most people. Certain actions and events seem incontrovertibly wrong, regardless of what ones society or religion my encourage.


Agreed. I can't sympathize with that though. I'll take reality, no matter how unpleasant, over willfully cherry picking whatever events make me happy.

My ex was like that. The idea that I didn't believe in unchanging, universal good and evil disturbed her to her core. She was a big bag of a special kind of crazy though. That lying to herself bullshiat played a huge part in our breakup.
 
2011-10-12 05:09:12 AM  

CtrlAltDestroy: rprygro: PC LOAD LETTER: Congratulations on proving morality is relative. Now go eat puppy while you learn that bucking societal norms has consequences. You are free to do anything you want within the law. It doesn't make them all things you SHOULD do.

Trying to figure out what this comment means. How did someone show morality is relative, and what is immoral about eating one kind of animal? Either its immoral to eat animals or its not.

Some people see it as immoral to eat dogs. Other's do not. Forest for the trees, bro.


And how exactly does that prove morality is relative? Be specific, now. A quick warning you'll probably want to consider: people thinking something is wrong does not make it wrong.
 
2011-10-12 05:12:38 AM  

CtrlAltDestroy: rprygro: People can't get it through their heads because moral relativism is not an attractive position for most people. Certain actions and events seem incontrovertibly wrong, regardless of what ones society or religion my encourage.

Agreed. I can't sympathize with that though. I'll take reality, no matter how unpleasant, over willfully cherry picking whatever events make me happy.

My ex was like that. The idea that I didn't believe in unchanging, universal good and evil disturbed her to her core. She was a big bag of a special kind of crazy though. That lying to herself bullshiat played a huge part in our breakup.


I can personally understand that for sure, but you don't have to accept relativism to account for the fact that different people have different values. If you're interested in ethics at all, check out TM Scanlon's writing on moral contractualism.
 
2011-10-12 05:16:56 AM  

rprygro:
And how exactly does that prove morality is relative? Be specific, now. A quick warning you'll probably want to consider: people thinking something is wrong does not make it wrong.


Sorry, but that's not true. Someone thinking that something is wrong does not automatically make it wrong to you. It does make it wrong to them.

Morality is nothing more than what we think is right and wrong. So, yes, if a person thinks that something is wrong then to them it IS wrong.

Now, you not seeing it as wrong to eat dogs (if that is indeed your feelings) doesn't change someone else thinking that it's wrong. You need to be able to put yourself in someone else's way of thinking.

Here's a perfect example. Abortions. I don't think that they are inherently wrong. Other people do. So, what makes it right or wrong? Who is right? Who is wrong? We both are. I'm right to me, they're right to themselves.

Morality is 100% dependent on what the individual perceives as good or bad. Such is the nature of morality.
 
2011-10-12 05:20:52 AM  

rprygro: I can personally understand that for sure, but you don't have to accept relativism to account for the fact that different people have different values. If you're interested in ethics at all, check out TM Scanlon's writing on moral contractualism.


I've no problem with other people having different values. I see that as a given. I do have a problem with people lying to themselves and ignoring the truth in order to see something they way they want it to be. I understand that many people do that as a crutch to make it through the day, but I still see it as disingenuous.
 
2011-10-12 05:22:34 AM  

CtrlAltDestroy: rprygro:
And how exactly does that prove morality is relative? Be specific, now. A quick warning you'll probably want to consider: people thinking something is wrong does not make it wrong.

Sorry, but that's not true. Someone thinking that something is wrong does not automatically make it wrong to you. It does make it wrong to them.

Morality is nothing more than what we think is right and wrong. So, yes, if a person thinks that something is wrong then to them it IS wrong.

Now, you not seeing it as wrong to eat dogs (if that is indeed your feelings) doesn't change someone else thinking that it's wrong. You need to be able to put yourself in someone else's way of thinking.

Here's a perfect example. Abortions. I don't think that they are inherently wrong. Other people do. So, what makes it right or wrong? Who is right? Who is wrong? We both are. I'm right to me, they're right to themselves.

Morality is 100% dependent on what the individual perceives as good or bad. Such is the nature of morality.


You're right, but not entirely. Someone can be offended and still not be right. They are not right because they are offended. Similarly, someone can think that something is wrong for bad reasons. The difference is justification. My point is, someone thinking something is wrong alone is not enough to say an action is wrong. There needs to be proper justification.
 
2011-10-12 05:24:29 AM  

CtrlAltDestroy: rprygro: I can personally understand that for sure, but you don't have to accept relativism to account for the fact that different people have different values. If you're interested in ethics at all, check out TM Scanlon's writing on moral contractualism.

I've no problem with other people having different values. I see that as a given. I do have a problem with people lying to themselves and ignoring the truth in order to see something they way they want it to be. I understand that many people do that as a crutch to make it through the day, but I still see it as disingenuous.


The point is having different values does no entail relativism. Your argument doesn't hold.

Having a slow day at work, by the way, please don't mistake my tone for anything other than argumentative haha.
 
2011-10-12 05:28:58 AM  

rprygro: You're right, but not entirely. Someone can be offended and still not be right.


Right to whom? Based on what?

They are not right because they are offended. Similarly, someone can think that something is wrong for bad reasons.

Bad to whom? Whose version of bad? Against which moral compass is it bad?

The difference is justification.

Who is justifying it? Are you justifying it? Because your justifications are ultimately meaningless to the person that you are interacting with.

My point is, someone thinking something is wrong alone is not enough to say an action is wrong. There needs to be proper justification.

To you. To many people thinking that it is wrong is enough justification to make it wrong. Not everyone is Dr. Spock. Some people are ruled by their emotions. To people like that what feels right and what feels wrong is all that matters.

I'm an INTJ. I prefer cold hard facts over emotions. However, Not everyone is the same way. Why is my morality and convictions better or more valid than someone else's?
 
2011-10-12 05:32:26 AM  

rprygro: The point is having different values does no entail relativism. Your argument doesn't hold.

Having a slow day at work, by the way, please don't mistake my tone for anything other than argumentative haha.


I see your tone as a salon (classically speaking) style of debate. No malice detected.

I'm not really sure what point your trying to make here, though. I'm trying to say that people hold different values based entirely on what they perceive as right and wrong, which is subjective to each person and cannot be held to any universal standard.
 
2011-10-12 05:53:34 AM  
Eh, gotta get moving. Hopefully I'll remember to check this thread later.
 
Displayed 50 of 211 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report