Poll of the Day > Do you think the yulin dog meat festival should be canceled this year?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Cacciato posted...

Lmao, dont even try that shit. I can go find somewhere that defines the word for my purpose too.

Good luck. That's from the Oxford dictionary. Anything else you would use would be shit. Not to mention that's what the word slaughter has always meant anyway.

Shit, I'll take a crack at it. Let's just post the rest of that definition:

slaughter
VERB

[WITH OBJECT]
1Kill (animals) for food.
‘at present the abattoir is slaughtering animals for the domestic market’

1.1 Kill (people or animals) in a cruel or violent way, typically in large numbers.
‘innocent civilians are being slaughtered’

1.2informal Defeat (an opponent) thoroughly.
‘the first team were slaughtered’

So, if the animals being harvested for products other than meat are:
-Killed in a cruel or violent way, especially in large numbers

It still fits the definition of slaughter.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/slaughter

But what are the definitions of cruel and violent? If either of them can be used to describe killing animals for products other than meat, I guess it counts.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/cruel

cruel
ADJECTIVE

1Wilfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it.
‘people who are cruel to animals’
‘a cruel remark’

1.1 Causing pain or suffering.
‘the winters are long, hard, and cruel’

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/violent

violent
ADJECTIVE

1Using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
‘a violent confrontation with riot police’

1.1Law Involving an unlawful exercise or exhibition of force.

Cruel arguably fits, but violent definitely does. No matter how you slice it, using physical force to kill something (animals) for the purposes of gathering animal products is a violent act according to the Oxford Dictionary, and thus constitutes slaughtering them according to the internal logic of your own qualified authority.

So people really put cats and dog in that category. If you are starving and nothing else to eat ok. But to make a day of eating helpless animals that were bred to be a companion.?
---

Without cats the Chinese would be eating rats. And have a big rat eating festival.
---

OneTimeBen posted...

Meaning even though it was illegal to sell it was no doubt consumed

Illegal where? In Yulin? According to the source you sort of gave me (http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/yulin-government-to-ban-sale-of-dog-meat/), a possible ban might be put into effect next month.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

Meaning even though it was illegal to sell it was no doubt consumed

Illegal where? In Yulin? According to the source you sort of gave me (http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/yulin-government-to-ban-sale-of-dog-meat/), a possible ban might be put into effect next month.

Think the title of the link says the story.
---

And why support this in any way? It's not starving people?
---

OneTimeBen posted...

Meaning even though it was illegal to sell it was no doubt consumed

Past tense

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/yulin-government-to-ban-sale-of-dog-meat/

"To ban," meaning it hasn't been banned yet.
---

OneTimeBen posted...

And why support this in any way? It's not starving people?

I don't support the festival.
---

Sarcasthma posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

Meaning even though it was illegal to sell it was no doubt consumed

Past tense

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/yulin-government-to-ban-sale-of-dog-meat/

"To ban," meaning it hasn't been banned yet.

Sarcasthma posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

Meaning even though it was illegal to sell it was no doubt consumed

Past tense

http://www.onegreenplanet.org/news/yulin-government-to-ban-sale-of-dog-meat/

"To ban," meaning it hasn't been banned yet.

So? Lol. Read it again. "To ban" means not this day. But in the future.
---

Alright, so you're from Iowa. Is English your first language?
---

Sarcasthma posted...

Alright, so you're from Iowa. Is English your first language?

Yes, what? Must have missed the part about 11 Million online signatures. That's why they WILL ban it.
---

OneTimeBen posted...

Uh it did change already. Supposedly. Dog meat was not to be for sale. I'm sure it was eaten.

Bullshit. It's China. They're just going to ignore a petition from a bunch of Americans.

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Cruel arguably fits, but violent definitely does. No matter how you slice it, using physical force to kill something (animals) for the purposes of gathering animal products is a violent act according to the Oxford Dictionary, and thus constitutes slaughtering them according to the internal logic of your own qualified authority.

Your logic fails considering you're not going to kill a bunch of chickens if you want their eggs.
---

OneTimeBen posted...

Sarcasthma posted...

OneTimeBen posted...

SusanGreenEyes posted...

Why would people in China care whether or not we oppose their festival?
I see people posting online for signatures, but I don't see how that would help.

You part of the problem.

Okay, Mr. Slacktivist.

Take that as badge. We all learn about shit happening. Sometimes we can do something about it. I'm not out to change the world but when certain things are brought to your attention why not.

Let's say there are 500,000 signatures on the petition.
What happens next?
---

For every person here who supports not eating dogs, I shall eat one dog.

China ignores international copyright laws, so I'm sure they'd wipe their ass with a petition.

PKMNsony posted...

For every person here who supports not eating dogs, I shall eat one dog.

You must be that Mr. Yulin I've heard so much about.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Your logic fails considering you're not going to kill a bunch of chickens if you want their eggs.

Hah, okay. I guess you win because you have a specific example, therefore no animal products besides meat require the killing of animals.
---

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Your logic fails considering you're not going to kill a bunch of chickens if you want their eggs.

Hah, okay. I guess you win because you have a specific example, therefore no animal products besides meat require the killing of animals.

Nah you just automatically lost by resorting to a straw man.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Tropic_Sunset posted...

Revelation34 posted...

Your logic fails considering you're not going to kill a bunch of chickens if you want their eggs.

Hah, okay. I guess you win because you have a specific example, therefore no animal products besides meat require the killing of animals.

Nah you just automatically lost by resorting to a straw man.

Uhh...did you forget what was being discussed?

Revelation34 posted...

You don't slaughter animals you want to get their non meat products from.

Revelation34 posted...

Cacciato posted...

Lmao, dont even try that shit. I can go find somewhere that defines the word for my purpose too.

Good luck. That's from the Oxford dictionary. Anything else you would use would be shit. Not to mention that's what the word slaughter has always meant anyway.

It literally doesn't matter if there are animal products that don't require animal slaughter to obtain. I made no comment on the necessity of becoming vegan or vegetarian as an implied consequence of this topic. I was simply pointing out that your use of 'slaughter' as a defense of your position was erroneous according to your own source, and the only way you can even construe my post as a straw man is because you already moved the goalposts from 'slaughter means killing the animal for meat' to 'well, you won't slaughter chickens for their eggs.' QED.

Or are you trying to imply that the chickens used for egg farming don't get slaughtered later on for meat? While you are correct that you don't necessarily HAVE to kill the chickens, the entire part of this discussion arouse because PO brought up that animals are treated inhumanely prior to slaughter as well. In other words, you get the non-meat products, THEN you slaughter them. These are not mutually exclusive events.
---

Tropic_Sunset posted...

It literally doesn't matter if there are animal products that don't require animal slaughter to obtain. I made no comment on the necessity of becoming vegan or vegetarian as an implied consequence of this topic. I was simply pointing out that your use of 'slaughter' as a defense of your position was erroneous according to your own source, and the only way you can even construe my post as a straw man is because you already moved the goalposts from 'slaughter means killing the animal for meat' to 'well, you won't slaughter chickens for their eggs.' QED.

Or are you trying to imply that the chickens used for egg farming don't get slaughtered later on for meat? While you are correct that you don't necessarily HAVE to kill the chickens, the entire part of this discussion arouse because PO brought up that animals are treated inhumanely prior to slaughter as well. In other words, you get the non-meat products, THEN you slaughter them. These are not mutually exclusive events.

Nope I specifically said you're not going to kill chickens if you want their eggs. They only kill them once they stop laying.
---

Revelation34 posted...

Nope I specifically said you're not going to kill chickens if you want their eggs. They only kill them once they stop laying.

You said, quote:

Revelation34 posted...

You don't slaughter animals you want to get their non meat products from.

The issue is twofold here, as pointed out by PO:

ParanoidObsessive posted...

You still slaughter them for leather, gelatin, bone meal, certain types of insulin, etc, so you're still losing a ton of things from that alone.

In addition, people who are actually concerned about "treatment before the slaughter" are probably also going to be worried about "treatment before you harvest milk, eggs, etc" for exactly the same reasons. It's still inhumane regardless.

There are plenty of non-meat products that require the animal's slaughter before being harvested. Dairy products are not the only products we get from animals aside from meat. Moreover, as pointed out, even in the absence of slaughter, you still have horrible conditions for most of the animals, which are arguably more inhumane than the slaughter itself. The point being that if you respond to moral outrage with the slaughter of animals for meat, it follows that you would be outraged by the treatment of animals in other aspects of gathering animal products and boycott the whole thing, thus becoming vegan. Or a farmer, I suppose.

Focusing on the killing of the animal is distracting you from the point that was made.
---