Killing dogs and animal ethics

Do you have any particular issue with any part of my argument?

you have to be ok with allowing any amount of cruelty to any animal. Their is no meaningful distinction between a dog and a pig that explains why it is alright to kill one of them but wrong to kill the other.

 

What was the problem with killing dogs again? Does anyone here actually have a problem with killing dogs?

 

Because your whole argument is pointed to two points of views that are very unrealistic. You think that anything that deviates even the tiniest from your thoughts on these point of views is irrelevant. It's the most fabricated bullshit argument on this whole forums.

 

My first premise is that people in a modern context eat meat as a luxury and by extension their own pleasure. I would love for you to explain how this is unrealistic. The second premise is that this action asserts that it is permissible to cause animals to suffer for your own pleasure, I would love to hear why this isn't a praxeological norm of the behavior of eating meat. My conclusion is then that society should permit cruelty to aninals not just in farming cases but in all cases assuming meat eating is just. You haven't adressed either of my premises in a defensible way (nobody reading this thread can seriously think "in early civilization people needed meat" is a valid negation of my premise) or explained why my conclusion doesn't follow from my premises.
What I have said is irrelevant is the descriptive truths you seem to think matter in this discussion. The behavior or ancient civilizations and their agriculture has nothing to do with this argument, society's opinion on this topic has nothing to do with this argument, etc. Ironically earlier in the thread you compared me to an "sjw" (as if fighting for social justice is a negative thing) but you seem to be the only one upset enough to start swearing.

 

Well this is sort of a tough point.

In most places its legal to slaughter a dog for food, unless you adopted the pet for companionship and it didn't say "I'm selling this to a slaughterhouse". So basically, if the animal was provided to you for the purpose of meat, you can kill it, obviously.

Now, it appears that there isn't much demand for dog meat, probably because dogs are usually seen as a housepet. And as much as it pains me to say this, I don't think people would want dogs to go to slaughterhouses.

Granted, I'm okay with your idea of being okay with killing a domestic pet for meat, unless the pet was provided to you for slaughtering, but at the time there doesn't seem to be much demand for dog meat, whenether it may be a difficult process to kill one legally, or because the product would become a huge flop.

Supply and demand is pretty relevant, so I don't see your point with your argument against iiwars.

 

The only way it is considered a luxury is because "It's what they know." You act as if people have dark desires of eating meat, like Hayley from American Dad(Episode is N.S.A (No Snoops Allowed)). Where she takes a cheat day on being a vegan and goes to the extreme of wanting to eat an ape brain that knows sign language. Permitting cruelty to animals will cause unstable mental problems for people. Like right now if someone is to abuse, neglect, or anything harmful(Besides killing) to any animal is against the law. They count you as mentally unstable. Also we euthanize 2.7 million dogs/cats a year, we don't even eat them or use anything from them. Also swearing does not mean upset, I find calling someone "Idiot" or question their age as more of a defamation to the whole argument than any cuss word that is just for emphasis on what I am saying.

 

I'm not saying someone should start killing dogs, I'm saying people should be permitted to kill dogs. Supply and demand only become relevant when advising someone on whether they should start a dog killing business or something.

 

And there goes my argument! Whoops...

 

Can I suggest you to a therapist? Maybe a mental institution?

 

But why
It is technically available to kill dogs for several reasons at shelters and all
but why
they would not be of any use to us dead except very possibly for medical research annnnd that's pushing it.
So, why

 

Again I'm not saying it is advisable to kill a dog, only that it is a amoral action that shouldn't be prohibited.

--- Double Post Merged, May 23, 2018, Original Post Date: May 23, 2018 ---

I didn't say I wanted to do this, only that it is a hypothetical reason someone would.

 

There are several legal reasons for you to have to kill a dog, it varies by state so here - When It's Legal to Kill a Dog

Otherwise, I would assume that it is prohibited because it is simply not necessary, as there is no demand for dog products for any use, its just part of animal cruelty.

You could argue the same thing with humans, its accepted that its not okay to kill a person, no one really uses that person after death, there's just no reason for the death, with the few exceptions including but not limited to self defense.

I'm not quite sure what the goal of the debate is.

 

MeepLord, I don't know if you notice this, but people are going by what they know in this argument. We are not going to take a magical journey into your sadistic fantasies. Extremes are very bad, no matter what it is for. I know you're trying to look at this as a super hyper Non-PC person, but this topic doesn't fit the "It's all okay, or none of its okay." Since there is way too much to account for. For example, you act as if people are killing animals for sadistic reasons, which is hugely false. Even the people who abuse animals tend to be just out lashes of frustration. They don't gain pleasure from it.

 

Something doesn't need to be "necessary" to be permitted. This would fall under any other legal pleasurable activity for a person. Things have to be shown to be immoral to be prohibited, amoral actions are always permitted (like gay couples).

My contention is that anyone who eats meat negates their ability to object to animal cruelty as one of the presupposed norms of eating meat is that it is ok to harm animals for the pleasure of humans.

--- Double Post Merged, May 24, 2018, Original Post Date: May 24, 2018 ---

lol these certainly aren't my own fantasies, I'm making a moral argument, if morality isn't "real world" enough for you don't post on a thread with ethics in the title.

If you do something it is because that thing brings you pleasure. With the exception of coerced action all action us done for pleasure. Can you give me one example of an action someone doesn't want to do but does nonetheless?

 

wait so gay marriage is now immoral (amoral lmao) but killing dogs isn’t?

 

do you know what the word amoral means you clown

 

What kwagscraft said. If you don't know what a word means google is a button click away.

 

clearly not can’t you see that

 

G o o g l e