MetalGear_Ninty's forum posts

Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

92

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#1 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] I didn't explain myself well before. All I am saying is that, when possible, surely it is ethical to respect other people's traditions and customs - unless those traditions and customs are in themselves barbaric.HoolaHoopMan

I guess I don't really see the appeal in respecting something merely because its a tradition.  When it comes down to it, people see the consumption of cats immoral/unethical simply because they're used to seeing them as pets (again tradition).  I see nothing wrong with it considering we slaughter various animals that are as smart or smarter than cats.  

 

The question of intelligence is an ethical question on a separate dimension to the one of respecting tradition. They are not mutually exclusive. BTW, I am not trying to make the point that eating animals other than cats is ethical.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

92

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#2 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]

*adds more words*

So still an appeal to tradition.  Right on. 

thegerg
I didn't explain myself well before. All I am saying is that, when possible, surely it is ethical to respect other people's traditions and customs - unless those traditions and customs are in themselves barbaric.

"surely it is ethical to respect other people's traditions and customs" Exactly, such as these peoples' custom of eating cats.

Like I said before, not all traditions are equal. It depends on how humane that tradition is, how long it has been around for, how many people observe that tradition as well as many other factors.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

92

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#3 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] I'm saying its viewed upon negatively likely BECAUSE of tradition, which you yourself backed as well. I commented as that line of reasoning is just kind of a fallacy.

There is a fine distinction here between two similar but different concepts: 1. Viewing something negatively because it is merely tradition to view that thing as negative 2. Viewing something as negative because it creates social discord as a secondary effect of people's traditions With my example, the tradition of keeping cats is secondary to the main point of not causing offence and social discord by eating cats due to that tradition of keeping cats as pets.

So anything that causes social discord because of peoples tradition should be banned?

I'm not saying eating cats should be banned. All I've been trying to do in this thread is for people to see why eating some animals is not morally equivalent as eating other animals. Eating beef in India is not the same as eating beef in the USA or anywhere else in the world.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

92

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#4 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"] There is a fine distinction here between two similar but different concepts: 1. Viewing something negatively because it is merely tradition to view that thing as negative 2. Viewing something as negative because it creates social discord as a secondary effect of people's traditions With my example, the tradition of keeping cats is secondary to the main point of not causing offence and social discord by eating cats due to that tradition of keeping cats as pets.HoolaHoopMan

*adds more words*

So still an appeal to tradition.  Right on. 

I didn't explain myself well before. All I am saying is that, when possible, surely it is ethical to respect other people's traditions and customs - unless those traditions and customs are in themselves barbaric.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

92

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#5 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="chaplainDMK"] In the 19th century and a good portion of the 20th century the majority of people considered blacks as inferior. So by your logic it was perfectly legitimate to discriminate against them since a majority viewed them as inferior?

No, that was not what I was saying at all.

Well yes you are, a majority of people traditionally hold cats as pets. You are only arguing that cats shouldn't be eaten based on that traditional discrimination - like claiming blacks are inferior because it is traditionally viewed as such.

I didn't say all traditions are equal. The tradition of people keeping cats as pets hardly harms anyone. The tradition of viewing blacks as inferior obviously is detrimental in many respects. Not all traditions are deserving of an equal amount of respect and reverence.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

92

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#6 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] So your argument relies on a mere appeal to tradition then? smh.

Cats are evil creatures.  We should have been eating them thousands of years ago. 

HoolaHoopMan
You don't understand ethics if you think it is independent of tradition.

I'm saying its viewed upon negatively likely BECAUSE of tradition, which you yourself backed as well. I commented as that line of reasoning is just kind of a fallacy.

There is a fine distinction here between two similar but different concepts: 1. Viewing something negatively because it is merely tradition to view that thing as negative 2. Viewing something as negative because it creates social discord as a secondary effect of people's traditions With my example, the tradition of keeping cats is secondary to the main point of not causing offence and social discord by eating cats due to that tradition of keeping cats as pets.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

92

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#7 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="theone86"]

As a vegetarian, I support the consumption of domesticated animals.  I think it brings to light the petty distinctions we try to make between animals that are acceptable to eat and ones that are not.  I think people who really have a problem with this should be asking themselves whether it's really any different than eating a cow or a pig.

HoolaHoopMan

There is a valid distinction. Cats and dogs are traditionally viewed in society as pets, pigs and cows aren't.

So your argument relies on a mere appeal to tradition then? smh.

Cats are evil creatures.  We should have been eating them thousands of years ago. 

You don't understand ethics if you think it is independent of tradition.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

92

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#8 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="theone86"]

So why does that have any bearing on whether or not it's acceptable to eat them?

deeliman
Why isn't this obvious? People grow attached to their pets; therefore, species of animals which are commonly used as pets in a society possess a special status in a society - they are protected and cared for moreso than animals which are not used as pets.

So? What if cats are seen as food in the Peruvian society? And the cats that are eaten at that festival aren't pets anyways.

They're not. You've missed my point. The species as a whole is seen as a pet species, so the individual cat still possesses a special status in a society even if that cat itself isn't anybodies pet. Not all animals are seen as equal in a society. The Hindus worship bovine and the ancient Egyptians greatly revered cats. The example with pets isn't greatly different. Just as you would be hesitant to eat beef in a Hindu society, then it is easy to see why anybody would be hesitant to eat cat in a society that keeps cats as pets.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

92

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#9 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts

[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="theone86"]

As a vegetarian, I support the consumption of domesticated animals.  I think it brings to light the petty distinctions we try to make between animals that are acceptable to eat and ones that are not.  I think people who really have a problem with this should be asking themselves whether it's really any different than eating a cow or a pig.

theone86

There is a valid distinction. Cats and dogs are traditionally viewed in society as pets, pigs and cows aren't.

So why does that have any bearing on whether or not it's acceptable to eat them?

Why isn't this obvious? People grow attached to their pets; therefore, species of animals which are commonly used as pets in a society possess a special status in a society - they are protected and cared for moreso than animals which are not used as pets.
Avatar image for MetalGear_Ninty
MetalGear_Ninty

6337

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

92

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#10 MetalGear_Ninty
Member since 2008 • 6337 Posts
[QUOTE="MetalGear_Ninty"][QUOTE="theone86"]

As a vegetarian, I support the consumption of domesticated animals.  I think it brings to light the petty distinctions we try to make between animals that are acceptable to eat and ones that are not.  I think people who really have a problem with this should be asking themselves whether it's really any different than eating a cow or a pig.

chaplainDMK
There is a valid distinction. Cats and dogs are traditionally viewed in society as pets, pigs and cows aren't.

In the 19th century and a good portion of the 20th century the majority of people considered blacks as inferior. So by your logic it was perfectly legitimate to discriminate against them since a majority viewed them as inferior?

No, that was not what I was saying at all.