25 million dogs eaten a year

[Father Heathen]

IMO, just because we kill animals in a manner that soozes our guilt doesn't make the killing any less killing. People don't kill animals for enjoyment. The Chinese are not doing it for their enjoyment unless you consider fine dining a form of enjoyment then we're all basically killing animals for enjoyment.

You're actually going to pretend that there is no difference between a quick, painless death and a slow, agonizing one? Would you not have a preference if it came to your own end? What does it say about people's humanity when they flippantly trivialize suffering?

 

[Father Heathen]

There's a folk belief that torturing the animal will make the meat tastier and the person who eats it healthier and more virile.

It's bizzare that a culture would normalize sadism in such a fashion. They also fuel poaching of critically endangered rhinos because they think grinding their horns into powder will make their little peepees hard.

 

[Revoltingest]

Someone who would do that to a dog, I would not trust in other matters. That seems quite Psychopathic to me. They could probably do the same thing to a human being.

You're agonizing over a practice which no one here has verified to exist.
A lot of people who've never been to China are telling you what everyone
over there is like. You're an impressionable fellow. I urge more skepticism.

 

[suncowiam]

You really think that humane slaughter is just about our guilt? There's no difference between using a bolt gun or skinning and gutting an animal while they're alive or beating them to death in your mind?

It's subjective what you think is humane. Various cultures slaughter animals in various ways that isn't comfortable for the animals. This didn't suddenly start with the Chinese and dogs. Any people with live stock will kill their animals as they see fit. Most of the time, it is to bleed the animal out.

Meat eaters have no idea how any of their animal foods were slaughtered not how those animals were feeling before consuming them. That's my point in all this and yet, meat eaters will still consume the food regardless.

 

[suncowiam]

You're actually going to pretend that there is no difference between a quick, painless death and a slow, agonizing one? Would you not have a preference if it came to your own end? What does it say about people's humanity when they flippantly trivialize suffering?

Read me post to SF.

If you consume meat, how do you know for sure that your meat was from animals that was done in your method?

I don't pretend there is a difference between the two but that isn't my only contention in all this. At some point, people will not have the method to kill in your "humane" ways, so then do they starve looking for other food?

As I said before, most methods of killing an animal is to let it bleed out. Most individuals from all cultures do this. The humane part is obviously a human notion because in the animal world, there is no humane method. Animals eat other animals alive or slowly kill their prey before consumption.

Do you know how your animals are slaughtered before you consume them? I think you should before you argue that all animals should be humanely killed before consumption. Is that fair to assert?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's subjective what you think is humane. Various cultures slaughter animals in various ways that isn't comfortable for the animals. This didn't suddenly start with the Chinese and dogs. Any people with live stock will kill their animals as they see fit. Most of the time, it is to bleed the animal out.

Meat eaters have no idea how any of their animal foods were slaughtered not how those animals were feeling before consuming them. That's my point in all this and yet, meat eaters will still consume the food regardless.

That's why there's laws on animal welfare that are informed by scientists governing animal slaughter in civilized nations, unlike China. It's not "subjective" as to how to minimize pain and suffering when killing an animal. We know how to do it.