What if hotdogs were made with actual dogs?

Ethics are a spook. You can do whatever you want, but you will pay for it in one or more ways.

You're right, which is why I don't normally eat hot dogs, they're expensive.

>Imagine wasting painkillers on pigs that are just going to slaughtered anyway.
How about we stop killing animals unnecessarily in the first place?
>Imagine contaminating pig meat with even more chemicals than it already is.
See point above.
>Imagine using fucking dogs as some moral standard to gauge which animals deserve to be eaten and which don't.
Imagine being so stupid that you're not able to logically justify why human beings deserve to live but not other species with the same intelligence as a low IQ human.

Yeah, same. I exclusively only eat top-shelf gourmet hot dogs and bratwursts: if my wallet is going to be raped, I at least like to enjoy actual meat and not just reconfigured rat anuses and porcine testicles.

Attached: hotdogs.jpg (894x506, 552K)

I've started eating a lot of Oncor salisbury steaks and "rib shapes patties". They're $2-3 and have 60g of protein per box. Compared to real meat, it's a little less protein for the same cost if you buy cheap meat, but they're easy to cook and make a lot at once.

>other species with the same intelligence as a low IQ human
Are you high, or are you 'other specie'?

why dont we worry about killing animals when we stop killing eachother? ie never because your idealism is a stark contrast to reality. your intelligence based value argument could be picked apart and used against you, keep that in mind. think about that.

What are you denying exactly? Are you saying there are no human beings (such as severely autistic) that are of similar level of intelligence as dogs, pigs, or gorillas?

You still haven't justified why killing/torturing/wronging a human is wrong but not for a non-human animal.
Can I have your justification please?

should peta just form squads with aks and mow down animals in the wild because wild life is so shit?

sounds like dogshit

I'll fill in for him. Moral nihilism negates everything. It's not wrong to murder, it's unethical and illogical., unless you are suicidal, essentially.

My position is not necessarily that the value of sentient beings is only determined by intelligence. I never said that.

I don't see why we should start doing something about animal suffering only when we stop killing each other. You can just stop eating animal products. You don't have to wait until the homicide rate falls to 0 worldwide.

When we will be able to, it will be good to reduce suffering in the wild yes. For now, we do't really can do much about it.
What we can do, is avoid the suffering to animals that WE CREATE, and that we can stop by simply stop buying these products.

If that makes you feel better, sure, you can do that. It does not change anything in reality about the nature of life and death and suffering, by choosing to not eat meat to reducing suffering is simply not anything close to being effective, or in line necessarily with whatever your prime axiom is. This is getting black pilled but imaging different scenarios as parallel universes and comparing them helps, are you a utilitarian or what? are you simply just against the existence of suffering itself?

Nothing against you or your tastes but these legit look like fucking dog food.

Attached: 0070575040589_a1c1_0600.png (600x600, 278K)

Is dog food more expensive than people food? You can bitch all you want normie but when you're poor and suicidally depressed, eating is hard. The easier and cheaper it is the better. And no, cooking is not easy, not by a long shot.

and ps: if your position is just "reduce suffering" should animals who have been naturally selected to have massive amounts of suffering be exterminated? should we genetically engineer ducks so that they don't reproduce soley by rape?
where does this line of reasoning end?

I know how rough it is user, I'm just giving you shit. I'm glad you have some foodstuff that you can reliably prepare and eat and find at least somewhat palatable. I hope you keep enjoying your riblets.

Attached: 16d43da2a4b11937c10b9a09d65eaf969a20b40b_hq.jpg (480x640, 38K)

Every comes down "it just is" you retarded nigger

all you have to do is boil water and throw shit into it. just boil water and throw some rice, chicken, beans n shit and just stir. thats it.

You can stay. Just don't talk about your girlfriends.

Just become a mortician, bro. I've had so many tasty taboo meals. No one notices bits of flesh missing here or there in the carcasses of those who've died due to some sudden,violent trauma. Plus you really can taste the difference between different aged meat. You definitely do not want to eat anything that's died of natural causes.

sffhfshfhsfhfsh, agent starling

To be honest I don't really care about the IQ argument. Dog meat tastes horrible compared to pork, is far less economical to produce and dogs are just more useful than pigs.

Take this and concentrate it down to "usefulness=value". It's simple when you break it down this way. If roaches were useful in some imaginative way, it'd be taboo to kill them. eating dogs don't have the taboo in chinkland because of different circumstances.

Dog food is cheaper but it's not quite healthy for humans and it's taste is beyond awful. Cat food is slightly less bad but it's the same kind of shitty.
I used to be there so I ate pet food sometimes when I was out of food and money but there was still some left. Back then i was so drunk that I often ate from trash cans, but pet food was still way too bad to actually feed on that.

I get extremely mad when people kill bugs unnecessarily, specially spiders. However, I don't give half a shit about pigs and cows being slaughtered, and even though I think vegans are right, I couldn't care less.
Am I retarded? Why do I empathize with bugs but not mammals?

Because you're here. You empathize with the "useless" because you see yourself as useless.

Being a sociopath can be an effective strategy like anything else. Take the things we know are wrong, make them right, and sometimes it'll work.

Well the usefulness argument is literally just there as supplementary reason. My main argument really is that dog meat tastes awful and isn't very versatile and it would be awfully expensive to produce in the quantities required to match pork. A dog takes a very long time to grow to full size, it's generally a very lean animal, the litter sizes vary massively and they are way more costly to feed. Pigs are literally only useful to humans for food and fertilizer production. Dog's on the other hand are useful in so many different ways to the extent that the only reason any culture eats dogmeat is because it became a staple during times of hardship and has retained that allure. I live in Switzerland where it is legal to eat both cats and dogs.

Honestly it doesn't matter who you "empathise" (feel the pain of others) with.
It matters more if you respect their interests in not getting tortured or killed. You don't need to feel their pain to have *compassion*.

I meant more by "usefulness", taste of meat would qualify as "usefulness", which can be defined differently by your ideal, of course. If defined as something as generic/liberal as "human success/overall happiness" taste of meat corresponds with usefulness. The Chinese torture dogs before slaughter because it improves the taste. Usefulness.

That is strange to be honest with you. I am a tarantula and invertebrate hobbyist and even when one of my T's dies who I've had for 10 or 15 years I have no real sadness like I would have for a dog or cat I've had for half that time.

How can you care about suffering you do not understand?

>implying we choose what animals we eat based on intelligence
We like dogs, we live with them and consider them our family. We don't do the same with pigs. Simple as that. In Asia, they don't see dogs as family, they see them as just another animal, therefore they have no issue with eating one. Then westerners get all upset because another culture isnt living by our standards.

Bugs are not useless tho. They kill other bugs. And unless you've got a plague, they're not harmful at all. They just do their shit and hope that the giant fucking human doesn't stomp them just cause they're unpleasant to look at.
At least a dead pig will kept me fed for a while. A bug's life has no impact on mine, killing it is absolutely cruel.

Only in America does that happen.

>At least a dead pig will kept me fed for a while.
Usefulness.
>A bug's life has no impact on mine, killing it is absolutely cruel.
>no impact

you started by saying they were not useless. You have to first decide on what you mean by "useful"

>humans are not useless, they kill other humans

imagine an alien saying this

But you do understand. These animals have very similar nervous systems to perceive fear and pain as we do. You know what it feels like to feel fear and pain as a human (because you are one), so you understand what it feels like for them more or less.

Also you just need to know that it is a bad thing for them (like it's a bad thing for you), you don't necessarily need to understand it in every detail.

Is it a bad thing though? Why is suffering inherently "bad"? There are very convincing arguments to the contrary. you are thousands year late to this question.

Let me rephrase. these "feelings" of fear or pain are an evolved trait, they are useful to us, we need them.

Well if there was an alien killing human, and an alien killing human killing human, and I was an alien, I would protect the alien killing human killing human and let them do their job instrad of just killing all humans and be done with it.
Some bugs are harmful, other beneficial, other neutral. I understand killing harmful bugs like poisonous spiders, though i don't partake on it. Just throw it outside ffs. But squashing an unpleasant looking bug just because it's "gross" is infinitely worse, in my opinion, than killing an animal to eat it.

Why do you understand killing "dangerous" spiders? Because they can harm us? Why does that affect the inherent value of the life form? Why is a harmless organism more valuable than a lifeforms that can kill you?

By bad I mean only worth avoiding. That suffering (when you have the interest in not suffering) is a bad thing is a fact.
You also accept it for yourself every second of your life. Every second of your life you implicitly accept that you need to avoid unnecessary suffering.
So you already consider it a bad thing for yourself. It's therefore irrational for you (or disingenuous) to consider suffering not bad for others, but bad for yourself.

Yes they are useful, useful in order to avoid the REAL fears and pains (such as getting killed by a predator, or murdered on the streets).
A small bad things to prevent much bigger bad things.

Cause my life is more important than other lives. That is generally how living stuff lives. Eventually your children might become more important than your life, or maybe a legacy, something you love. But in most cases your survival is one of your top priorities, and thus you gotta do things that keep you alive. Cross the street when the light is green, eat food and drink water and kill shit that will kill you if you dont kill it. Slightly more naturalistic humans might chose less caveman ways to deal with potential risks, such as throwing the spider out instead of squashing it.

But still, survival is something I can understand killing over. But killing something just because it's an eyesore is completely unjustified to me.

I don't consider suffering unnecessary inherently, you are assuming things i ihave not said. I am drunk but i will get through this. do you avoid the pain of touching a frying pan or do you avoid just touching the frying pan?

i can fix this misunderstanding. would you accept a lower suffering rate average if it meant a higher suffering rate for a few? the gazelle needs to feel suffering of being eaten by the lion so that descendents will run from the lion. This is just dawrinian reality, not idealism. Yuo can then add idealism to say "reduce suffering" but then you are in conflict with the "make babies is all that matters" of reality.

What kind of backwards ass thinking makes people say cross when the light is green? Do they mean the walk sign? The traffic light should be fucking red when you cross.

Yeah walk sign I guess. English is not my mother tongue so sometimes stuff like this happens. Streetlights and walk signs are both "semaforo" for me.

It's okay, I've seen it in English too. I never understood what they meant until now.

>pigs are smarter than dogs
I've got a whoodle thats smarter than 5 year old niece. Find a pig that can answer yes or no questions and I'll cave.

Call me a psychopath but i don't really care how my sausage is made as long as i can buy it and its made of quality meat.

based rationalist

>quality meat
Expand.

tasted good and didn't hurt me= quality

Sounds like you'll have to cave.
Pigs can even play videogames with a fucking joystick.

youtube.com/watch?v=u-UE-wUpl6Q

youtube.com/watch?v=mza1EQ6aLdg&ab_channel=BBCEarth

Attached: 5345.jpg (318x159, 11K)

Grape flavoured Floride tastes good and doesn't hurt me. Wouldn't grade it as quality meat.

Never had one in my entire life so i don't really care. Also did i miss something? Since when were wrestlers like this

the meat aspect is included. that's not meat.

Fuck, got me there. Still. I'd rather eat bacon than a dog. Luminous or not.

I would definitely try eating dog. I bet it tastes good. I looks good when the Chinese cook it.

>looks good when the chinese cook it
Impossible.

Also "less healthy" or something

No shit people would be upset if you ate their pets
>Hurr you drive a car, but how'd you feel if someone stole your car and drove away

Presumably people who own dogs as pets would be against the killing of dogs in general not necessarily only their own dog.
The point is that people are disconnected from pigs' suffering because they don't think about them as beings worthy or the same respect as the animals they have as pets.

Perhaps eating sentient creatures is a bit immoral.

Attached: 1533534162432.gif (230x230, 1.54M)

>tail chopped off
>teeth clipped
>castrated
God, I wish that were me
>in all seriousness, meat eating is Jewish

I don't really see any reason why it would be.

In that case eating pigs should be no different from eating cats and dogs.

Is it good to kill and eat you?

It isn't, really. It's just not customarily done. If I could go out and get an order of Cat McNuggets I wouldn't have the slightest problem with doing so.

Undeniable it is somewhat hypocritical to farm and eat pigs without concern yet believe doing the same to dogs is abhorrent.
Although there are some nuances here that need to be pointed out.

Firstly I believe a lot of the disgust around eating dogs is infact due to the unethical way in which they are kept and killed, not necessarily the fact they are being eaten in the first place. Countries that tend to eat dog generally have a lesser concern for animal welfare...etc than Western countries. I'm sure we've all seen the fucked up footage of dog farms and such from certain Asian countries.

Secondly, this is somewhat subjective but I feel that, even theoretically assuming equal ethical treatment and capacity to suffer between say a pig and a dog, I feel somehow it is still less acceptable to eat a dog.
Simply because domesticated dogs and humans have a special relationship in a way humans and pigs do not. Humans and dogs have a unique bond that has formed over thousands of years. We have lived together, worked together than been companions to one another for so very long. It is literally in their DNA to be good companions to us, and to an extent also in our own DNA I suppose . "Dogs are a mans best friend"...etc.

Eating them to me feels like a despicable betrayal of this bond and mutally beneficial relationship which has formed and been maintained for so long.

Attached: gooddoggo.jpg (600x315, 33K)

I don't give a fuck, I'll eat all of those little bastards.

Attached: 1445916121414.png (333x254, 153K)