top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 22 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

This hits close to home since my dog actually escaped the Chinese meat market. As far as I’m aware it’s actually a big problem over there. They were owned by an (assuming) wealthy family then stolen and sold. They were part of the batch that were seized / stolen back (tbh I’m fuzzy on the details). We’ve since given her a happy life and a family, but I feel a little morbid that fate could’ve swayed the other way and they would’ve been someone’s dinner.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 58 points 5 months ago
    [–] 15 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Should have sold the dog as a pet. Previous owner paid $300USD for him.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Welcome to China's huge gap between cities and some rural areas. Where the parents (from where the dog was stolen) live, there may not have been a market for a pet.

    But restaurants have needs all the time.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 28 points 5 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 49 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    Am I missing something?

    Nothing in the article itself suggests that we know what happened to the dog after it was stolen other than the headline.

    The article just ends after this part:

    Guo cut short his trip and rushed back to China to search for him.

    Checking the archive didn't turn up any more of the article.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago

    What the actual ….. 😕

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    There still exist absolute traditionalist peasantry, unbending even during Mao and the Cultural Revolution, and even unchanged by how much money they earn, where they still maintain their own culture and habits, which includes consuming certain animals for their supposed medicinal and libidinous properties. Yeah, to those people, a dog is a dog that can be killed for dinner as livestock... and washed down with beer.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago* (1 child)
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    I saw a video of the guy crying in his car after confronting the people who kidnapped his dog and sold it.

    Heartbreaking. He might just go John wick on their ass.

    They stole his beloved pet and sold it to be slaughtered.

    Most people see their pets as family. How would you feel if someone did that to your pet or family member you loved?

    It's enough to make someone go on a vengeance spree. It really is.

  • source
  • [–] 37 points 5 months ago*

    I'm sorry but this line is so absurd i can't stop laughing

    Anyway, this is a matter on the levels of disable someone

  • source
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago (59 children)

    Maybe just stop eating dogs eh?

  • source
  • hideshow 59 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 5 months ago (40 children)

    While not getting into whether we should eat meat at all, if we are eating meat, I don't see how eating dog meat is any more or less immoral than eating most other meats. Eating someone's pet, whether it be a dog or a pot belly pig is a shit move, but I doubt the restaurant was told they were buying someone's pet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    I can't think of any animal that has such an innate empathetic connection to humans as dogs. Dogs can read us, and we can read them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Can you read a cat, does a cat read you?

    You should not justify animals rights not to be slaughtered by their connection to humans.

    Pigs are deeply empathic, horses read humans very well, and whales have complex family systems. The division "cute animals" and "edible ones" is just a cultural construct to avoid the moral atrocity.

    EDIT: typos

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Wild dogs don't, and some people don't have any interest in an empath9c connection with dogs. After that, most animals are deeply interested in their own survival.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    I find it strange how you’re getting downvoted, since there’s so much evidence to back up your point. There’s literally a whole page on Wikipedia that goes over the human-canine bond and how it’s unique.

    Some points it brings up:

    studies have demonstrated that both dogs and humans release oxytocin while spending quality time together.

    Canines are capable of distinguishing between positive and negative human facial expressions and will react accordingly.

    Psychologists believe that the relationship between human and canine is a bidirectional attachment bond, which resembles that of the typical human caretaker/infant relationship, and shows all of the usual hallmarks of a typical bond.

    Canines are capable of assessing humans' emotional states, as well as discriminating humans by levels of familiarity.

    Studies have demonstrated that shelter dogs benefit from interacting with complete strangers…These results demonstrate the canines' innate desire to form an attachment with a human

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    More because it's beside the point. Sure, dogs are unique in that way. That's not why they're taboo to eat specifically in our part of the world.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    No, that’s very much a part of why it’s considered taboo. Obviously there’s a wide range of difference in cultural opinion of what’s considered “okay” to eat, but dogs have still been with humans for the longest out of any domesticated animal. They’ve literally evolved to eat diets more like our own. It’s completely intuitive that there would be such vehement opposition to eating an animal we’re so historically close to, even if it’s mostly on a cultural basis.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago

    A study can find practically find any correlation it wants based on its premises. Studies have also found that sugar based diets are better than fat based ones. But neither are very convincing on telling about how to proceed on a specific issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    You've never had a friend chicken. God damn are chickens cute, friendly animals if you keep one as a pet. Almost makes me feel bad eating them, all animals are empathetic if you spend some time with them.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Then why are horses also controversial to eat?

    Let's be real, this isn't a thing where someone sat down and decided morally speaking what our diet should be. It's a cultural standard, and it's the same as Hindus being mad that in the West we specifically eat beef.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago

    No, you anthromorphize and project on them, but you don't read them. They are an animal and we have no way of knowing what they think. What we have is a cultivated relationship through years of selective breeding, same as could be done with plenty of animals given the reason and time.

    I'm glad you love your pet, but you don't know if they love you. You assume based on human projection, forgetting they are not human.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Now add human into that sentence

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    it's a safety concern. Cannibalism spreads diseases easier.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Human meat, much like rabbit meat, can cause "rabbit starvation" so I suppose that's another reason. Plus people get their panties in a wad if you start talking about eating other people for some reason. I personally think there's plenty of fat billionaires I would not mind eating.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

    Any kind of really lean meat can cause "rabbit starvation". Humans just can't process too much protein.

    Like you said, though, many humans are deliciously marbled, or have a fat layer you could focus on.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -16 points 5 months ago* (16 children)

    technically everything has a consciousness including plants, beans etc so you lose high ground if youre going to play a moral card in any of this. plants just can run away or scream.

    it can still be tragic to eat an animal companion.

    let's just not pretend someone holds sll the moral cards for not eating consciousness to stay alive. nobody in these fleshbags holds any of the high ground there.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    If you believe plants experience suffering, and would like to reduce suffering, you should go vegan. The reason is that by eating meat, you kill or harm way more plants — the plants that have been eaten by the animals you eat.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (9 children)

    I think the point is that we all eat food, and at some point in it's production, some suffering happened. and that's alright

    edit:

    this has nothing to do with privilege. it's talking about the democracy of food.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    this is the peak of privilege

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (7 children)
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    I tend to respond to bad takes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    dude, I don't even know you. I see nonsense and I post a reply. feel free to block me if you want.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    you've been stalking me since January. stop

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    To be clear: I am not disagreeing about introducing more plants to replace meats and other unhealthy stuff on a health and economic perspective. That path of awareness is not what im having a problem with.

    What i am disagreeing with is that you or anyone who is eating plant based is using the reasoning that you've absolved suffering overall somehow by going vegan. this path of thinking creates a problem for everyone you cannot possibly solve. including yourself.

    This is suggesting we must only ever hold an awareness that to live is to suffer and continue imposing suffering on others. And it doesnt matter what you subsitute. It is all suffering from the consciousness perspective if everything is made of consciousness in order to exist(create and distribute). everything you ever consume will have held conscious and will have affected consciousnrss in order to exist and be available to you.

    you will never find a solution to that while you exist as a human that requires to consume consiousness to continue to exist. at least in this form as a human. there is no altruistic answer in this kind of an argument.

    plants cant scream. they cannot run. they might not have a fluffy tail and do not lick your face but they are still conscious. And that does not make you any less of a monster in this vilifying moralistic scenario you've manifested to shove towards all of humanity.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Can you cite the scientific study that or the philosopher who says with so much confidence that plants (or even animals, for that matter) have consciousness? Don't get me wrong, my personal belief is closer to your statement, but I have always held that as belief, not fact.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago*

    Are you holding me to a higher standard over all the scientists who currently exist whom still cannot prove let alone agree upon where exactly in the body that human consciousness exists?

    I'd almost take that as a compliment if I didn't believe you are severely mislead on the certainties of human consciousness enough that you had any ground to call into question plant (or animals, for that matter) consciousness.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    expand that to all animals and you're really on to something

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 5 months ago (10 children)

    You say that like plants don't die when we eat them too

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    There's a massive difference of plants growing in fields and being cut down to animals being kept in their own shit where they can't even turn around for years.

    Oh and you know what kills more plants? It being grown for animal feed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)
    1. yeah, plants can't run or cry.
    2. i'm not tryna save anything. Fuck this planet. Stop trying to moralize killing to eat, it's a fraught endeavour. Precisely the sort of first error that lets you generalize to inter human exploitation.
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Not to mention how much agriculture itself kills wildlife

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Just as valid as eating a pig.

    (However valid you think that is)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Depends on how you view the food chain. If you're against eating mean for environmental reasons, carnivores are much more unethical then eating herbivores.

    I've never understood the idea of farming carnivores for meat because of how much more costly the process must be.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago*

    Dogs can live fine on a vegetarian diet, and pigs will happily eat meat or predate. They're both highly social omnivores. Most likely, they get the same kind of food when farmed, too.

    The comparison gets more difficult to prove with cows, and a lot more difficult for chickens. But, a pig is almost the same animal ecologically, and people have pet pigs that live in their house just like a dog.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 12 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    So dog meat is affordable?

    looks at my cockapoo

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    You already own the cockapoo, so only you can say how affordable its meat is

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    My lab was $500. Discount doggy. But his alive value is immeasurable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Rupert† was only $60. But we have fed him for something like 8 years. So that's a pretty large investment for a meal. And if you see my posts over on c/cooking you will know that I am always calculating the cost of a meal.

    Your lab has a lot more than $500 in them. Don't undervalue them. I don't think lab is suitable for breakfast, lunch or brunch. Have people over for dinner and charge a reasonable amount.

    † aka I wasn't letting my wife make him Giles.


    This comment, hopefully, is solidly sarcasm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    My yorkshire terrier has horrible price to weight ratio. He was about 18000 sek as a puppy, with a weight of less than half a kilo. As I fed him to full weight, he stopped growing muscles at around 3 kilos.

    Would not recommend as a food species. I kept him alive and now, 11 years later, I can say that he has been fully acceptable as a pet instead.

    Kant the dog

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    I hope he shared which restaurant the dog was sold to. I suspect the place would be burnt to the ground.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Nah Chinese don't care about animal rights in any capacity. Unless it's a Panda - then you need a lease.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    Well, there's quite the headline.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago
    [–] 15 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    The article title and body don't match in the amount of the sale:

    sold for US$25

    He was later told that Chutou had been sold to a dog meat restaurant for 180 yuan (US$27) and the pet had been eaten.

    I mean, not that it's that far off, but seems odd to have an article where the two don't match.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 5 months ago*

    180 yuan right now is $26.59. Given the headline only reports the conversion which changes, it's arguably better to round it as they did to convey a general point rather than the exact specific amount of dollars.


    Edit: Looking at it now, the conversion rate seems reasonably stable, so I wonder if they still rounded it just for simplicity's sake.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Eating Dog? In modern day China?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (2 children)
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›