Democracy Matters -
Winning the Fight Against Imperialism
|
Thursday, 13 April 2017
quote [ Killing, selling and consuming dogs (and cats) is now illegal in Taiwan. Will South Korea and mainland China follow suit? ]
Why eat dogs when you can just go to Arby's?
|
donnie said @ 12:15am GMT on 14th April
It amuses me when non-scientists make such statements. I'm not paying attention to the data? I think not. The very first highlight in the paper you cited (not the article, mind you, the actual scientific publication) states :
This is the first comparative neuroimaging study of a nonprimate species and humans
So it cannot possibly conclude, nor does it make any presumptions to, that their "...ability to empathize, communicate with, and live alongside humans [is unique]. It shows that does do these things. It says absolutely nothing about this being unique. You're inventing this conclusion and then basing an argument around it.
I mean, beyond that, what's your point? That it's OK to eat dolphins because they live in water and we live on earth? That it's OK to eat pigs because mostly people don't have them for pets? I don't really follow your logic. I understand that you wouldn't eat a dog - I probably wouldn't either - but that's hardly a reason to say that, if you would eat a pig, that it's objectively any different. You just feel differently about it for reasons that cannot possibly form any sort of moral justification to tell other people that their meat is bad and your meat is good.
donnie said @ 12:16am GMT on 14th April
It amuses me when non-scientists make such statements. I'm not paying attention to the data? I think not. The very first highlight in the paper you cited (not the article, mind you, the actual scientific publication) states :
This is the first comparative neuroimaging study of a nonprimate species and humans
So it cannot possibly conclude, nor does it make any presumptions to, that dogs' "...ability to empathize, communicate with, and live alongside humans [is unique]. It shows that dogs do these things. It says absolutely nothing about this being unique. You're inventing this conclusion and then basing an argument around it.
I mean, beyond that, what's your point? That it's OK to eat dolphins because they live in water and we live on earth? That it's OK to eat pigs because mostly people don't have them for pets? I don't really follow your logic. I understand that you wouldn't eat a dog - I probably wouldn't either - but that's hardly a reason to say that, if you would eat a pig, that it's objectively any different. You just feel differently about it for reasons that cannot possibly form any sort of moral justification to tell other people that their meat is bad and your meat is good.
<-- Entry / Current Comment
donnie said @ 12:15am GMT on 14th April
It amuses me when non-scientists make such statements. I'm not paying attention to the data? I think not. The very first highlight in the paper you cited (not the article, mind you, the actual scientific publication) states :
This is the first comparative neuroimaging study of a nonprimate species and humans
So it cannot possibly conclude, nor does it make any presumptions to, that dogs' "...ability to empathize, communicate with, and live alongside humans [is unique]. It shows that dogs do these things. It says absolutely nothing about this being unique. You're inventing this conclusion and then basing an argument around it.
I mean, beyond that, what's your point? That it's OK to eat dolphins because they live in water and we live on earth? That it's OK to eat pigs because mostly people don't have them for pets? I don't really follow your logic. I understand that you wouldn't eat a dog - I probably wouldn't either - but that's hardly a reason to say that, if you would eat a pig, that it's objectively any different. You just feel differently about it for reasons that cannot possibly form any sort of moral justification to tell other people that their meat is bad and your meat is good.
