A perfect demonstration of how you are resistant to understanding my point.

I am not saying that if you eat meat that you should kick puppies, etc.

I am saying that if you eat meat (indulge in harm to animals for entertainment), you should simply refrain from negatively judging others who also indulge in harm to animals for entertainment in another way- be that wearing fur, dog fighting, bull fighting, trophy hunting, or strapping explosives to small animals and watching them blow up for kicks.

I do not suggest that you should also do those things- I prefer that you do not.

The only thing I advised you to do is to stop being critical of others for doing essentially the same thing you are (that is, harming animals for entertainment).  I didn't suggest that you compound whatever cruel practices you elect to engage in.

I would say the same thing to a vegetarian who liked to fight dogs if he or she criticized you for eating meat- they're both ways of harming animals for entertainment.

I don't suggest that you even need to care about animals- merely that you be consistent, and accept that other people also have just as much a right as you do to hurt animals for whatever reason they want.  Nothing you are doing is necessary- it's all a matter of your personal preference for culinary entertainment.

That's not at all what this is about.  This is about your hypocrisy and bad rationalizations (which you still haven't admitted).

This is about taking responsibility for one's own actions, and the degree of harm one is choosing to cause, and seeing things in perspective.

Ostensibly, you would also have to abstain from things like dog or cock fighting, and numerous other forms of animal cruelty perpetrated for entertainment.  I noted that it's entirely possible that, given the slight nature of the offense you're criticizing here, it may not be possible to comment without blatant hypocrisy for anybody short of a vegan.

I would kill aggressive animals to defend the lives of my family members, so I probably can't criticize these people for what they're doing.  For me, defense of loved ones trump entertainment as justification.

Rob, the problem here is that you just aren't a very rational person.

Your = possessive, belonging to you.

You're = contraction of you and are.

You aren't eating cows for sustenance; you're eating them for flavour.  There are plenty of other things in first world countries to eat for sustenance.  You make a choice because you prefer the way cows taste to the way alternative high-protein foods taste.

If it weren't for the aspect of culinary entertainment (whatever combination of taste and texture), economy would have won out and people would be eating far cheaper bean-based protein products.

That's not my notion- my notion is that you're a hypocrite because you suppose to do both without acknowledging your responsibility for your own actions.  You're perfectly capable of doing both- people the world over hold conflicting values and actions.  That doesn't make it rational.

That is the first valid argument you've made against me in the history of our arguments here.

As long as you recognize your past hypocrisy and take responsibility for your choice to harm animals (which you almost seem to have done in the last paragraph)- a choice not at all unlike that any other person makes when they do so for their own reasons- and you don't go about considering yourself a better person than these people who chose to kill dogs, then there's nothing really to argue about.

Strictly speaking, by the definition of hypocrite, even an immoral person (by his or her own evaluation, through lack of will power, for example) can fully well argue against the actions of others who are doing precisely the same thing so long as he or she does not consider himself or herself morally superior in doing the same.  One would think, though, that in this recognition of equality that the anger in the argument would be at least tempered, lest he or she be equally angry at himself or herself (or even more so).

That is to say, feel free to feel hate/anger towards these animal abusers, as long as you feel that hate/anger towards yourself too, you aren't a hypocrite.  Just don't try to rationalize your own actions to give yourself a pass while you criticize others for the same thing.  After all, a homosexual Christian can hate homosexuals without being hypocritical as long as he or she doesn't give himself or herself a pass, and is equally self-loathing.

So, I should amend my statement: only a vegetarian (possibly only a vegan) or a self-loathing omnivore can criticize others for these kinds of actions without being hypocritical.

In practice, though, it would seem that any honest self-loathing omnivore might direct his or her actions where they can make the most difference- in his or her own life- before directing them at others (which is why that odd loop-hole in hypocrisy is so rarely ever seen).

No, it's not a point.  Are you completely scientifically illiterate?

The animals you eat, eat more plants per serving of meat than I eat in a serving of plants.  This is very basic thermodynamics.  It's a difference of nearly an order of magnitude (give or take a little, depending on the type of meat and the exact conditions).

This is only another point in contention of your stance- that your diet is more environmentally destructive (if one is concerned for environmental effects).

Tofu isn't grass, but that's not the point (nor is that you're probably eating the wet soft stuff, which isn't particularly good compared to pressed and dried tofu or TVP, and that you probably don't have a clue how to cook it).

But yes, it is my choice- and it's your choice too.  You *could* eat tofu, but you choose not to because you prefer the taste and texture of meat.  It is a matter of culinary entertainment that leads you to harm animals.

Probably, but there are a good number of people, such as Kapkao, who don't give a shit, and thereby completely avoid hypocrisy.

At least virtually nobody is completely blameless; it's about accountability and responsibility for our actions- and not adding insult to injury by using bad rationalizations to pretend that we're not doing anything wrong, or that it's actually "necessary".

It's not necessary, it's a choice.  I also make a choice to use computers and electronics, which use rare Earth materials, which largely come from a select few deposits of mud in the third world where working conditions are not particularly good at all.

I use electronics with elements mined from third world mud, somebody else wears Nike made in a sweat shop somewhere- I recognize my part in responsibility, as a consumer, for those working conditions, and I don't criticize somebody else taking part in a supply chain that's driving the same sorts of conditions.

Once an alternative is presented- even if it means my processor can't be clocked as high so my computer is a bit slower, and it's a little more expensive- I'll have to make a choice there.  The same way consumers have to make a choice regarding which shoes they buy.

If I continue to make the choice to purchase the "superior" product at the expense of those human conditions, I have no place to criticize the shoe buyer.  If I switch, and no change is present for the shoe buyer- again, no place to criticize.  If I switch, though, and another option is available that the shoe buyer doesn't take, then I would have a place to criticize that decision.

What I'm not going to do, however, no matter which choice I make, is sit around and make excuses to absolve any guilt I may feel.  Buy or not buy whichever type of electronics- that's on me.  And I'm not going to go about criticizing others out of place.

And yet you would still be a little upset?

And you seem to enjoy eating cows without remorse.  Why?  Because you've deluded yourself into believing that it's necessary or morally right.

These people believe that killing these dogs is necessary and morally right.

The only thing you *don't* have in common with these people is that after all of the bad rationalizations are peeled away, they actually have a better excuse than you do- they're defending their families, you're enjoying a flavour.

Right, and I'm sure you would have been right on top of that in a middle of a war and with even less biology education than you have now.  People can only do what is within their means.

Yeah... I'm sure that's true, but I don't see a big difference between hurting and killing an animal for sadistic entertainment and hurting and killing an animal for culinary entertainment.

Pain and death for pleasure- that's the trade we're talking about here.  It doesn't matter which part of your brain is incidentally giving you that pleasure.

Most importantly, as far as the animal is concerned, it's all the same.  A cow doesn't know the difference between suffering and dying for somebody's sadism or somebody's taste preference.

Never said you were; the fact that you're upset at anybody's indifference to killing animals, or even upset at sadistic enjoyment at killing animals, is all the same.

The fact it comes down to is that your preferred taste sensation is chemically no different than any other form of pleasure people may get from killing animals- it doesn't matter which part of your brain lights up- and that the suffering and death on the other end aren't magically relieved based on some vague notion of intent either.

Pain and death = pleasure.

This basic equation remains unchanged.

Now, if you added your own guilt to it instead of rationalizing *that* would be something different.

But by eating any food or using any living space, you are taking away habitat and resources that could be used for animals. So you are effectively killing or not allowing wild animals to live, just by your mere existence.

I would suggest offering up your body to a wild animal for meat if you want to take a moral high ground. This is the only way to claim you don't harm animals.

And while a bobcat is chawing down on your legs, think about that grey area again and realize it's not so bad and in some cases it may be downright rational.

He's wrong though, you obviously give a shit about something or you would have experimented with a bullet to the brain long ago, or maybe d-con who knows you are weird.

splat, told ya.

I can't answer for Tippi Hedron, but I can answer for the group I hang with.  Almost all are omnivores, meat eaters.  But then, we rescue Australian Shepherds.  Herding dogs.  The different breeds generally have different attitudes about stock herding given the stock characteristics and the environmental conditions.  Aussies were bred to herd cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, human children, ducks, chickens, etc.  What is called a "utility" stock dog.  Australian Shepherds not only herd anything, they were used in the Pacific Northwest to move sheep between summer and winter pasture, for paddock work at stockyards, for small farms, and for getting wild cattle out of the Mesquite bosques in the South West US.  Some of my friends rescue Border Collies, who were bred to herd sheep on the moors of Scotland, Ireland and Wales. 

We have an attitude towards stock that Blake might think is very cavalier.  Sheep, cattle, chicken, goats, ducks are dumb.  Herd animals were evolutionarily selected for nervousness, sticking together in the herd, aggressiveness and speed.  Not for brains.  They survived by running and breeding.  They do not outwit their predators.  They are dirty.  They smell.  And the domesticated breeds could not survive on their own in the wild.  They are not aggressive enough, they do not run fast enough, and many need human assistance to birth offspring.  Today's domesticated breeds have low resistance to disease and parasites.

So, is this hypocritical?  We don't think so.  We have had discussions about this subject around the picnic table at trials.  Generally, we are city folk playing at being stock men with our herding dogs or we are real ranchers and stock men, out to have fun with our dogs.  And the consensus is that PETA folks and similar who get all dewy eyed about livestock have never had to deal with them.  If they think that it is cruel to the dogs to have them herd stock, they have never had their dog on stock and have never seen the dog whine and cry to get back in the field and play with the stock some more.  And the stock should not be stressed by being herded.  The idea is to get them to market without losing any weight.  That means, move them quietly and at a slow trot, no stress.  Yes, the younger dogs with inexperienced handlers may be more enthusiastic than that, but the goal is a gentle trot through the course.

We all agree that factory farming of animals is cruel and unnecessary, and everyone would be healthier if we ate less meat only from small local producers.  (Yeah, that is the people who are sitting at that picnic table.)

I have seen the videos of how cattle and pigs in particular are treated at the big packing plants in the US.  It is often cruel and it is often needlessly painful.  It doesn't have to be that way and we could change our meat packing plants so they are more humane for the stock and for the people working there.  It would mean more expensive hamburgers at MickeyD's and the other fast food outlets.  But to my way of thinking that wouldn't be a bad thing.

You want to see fewer animals slaughtered for meat?  Make factory farms pay for stream and water pollution in cash for the full mitigation costs.  Make the antibiotics and hormones illegal.  Pay the workers a living wage with benefits.  Watch the price of meat skyrocket and the amount sold and eaten vastly reduced.  Better for all parties involved.

Back to rescuing dogs.  Dogs are very involved with their people.  Sheep do not wag their tails with glee when they see you unless you are carrying a feed bucket.  My dogs bounce and woo-woo and give me kisses when I get home even if I don't have biscuits in my pocket.  It's the emotional involvement that keeps people rescuing dogs.  It is not hypocritical at all to love an animal back when they loved you first and to not love an animal who doesn't give a rip about you. 

For a discussion about dogs being able to love, see For the Love of a Dog: Understanding Emotion in You and Your Best Friend by Dr. Patricia McConnell a research ethologist and dog trainer.  The book is available from a lot of places, but here is her website: http://www.patriciamcconnell.com/product/for-the-love-of-a-dog-understanding-emotions-human-dogs

What a curious thread, more interesting than I thought it was going to be, based on the first couple of posts I looked at when it started.

A few observations:

In parts of Asia, and parts of China in particular, they do breed dogs for food - I remember a curious mix of thoughts coming to mind when I heard a dog bark while I was walking thru a market in China...

If the dogs are causing real problem in the original situation described, shooting them, assuming the guys are good marksman, is probably the most compassionate way out, although I personally don't particularly like the idea of deliberately killing dogs. There are some pesky mutts around here who have taken a dislike to me and run out after me yapping there stupid heads off. Hand me a gun at such times and I might just use it... although I am pretty sure I would regret it later.

I am pretty much a practical 'vegetarian', only occasionally eating meat for a bit of variety of taste, and then mainly chicken, occasionally pork.

I get my protein from a mix of beans, oily fish (sardines, mackerel, herring), eggs, and various vegetarian items such as tofu, tempeh, and TVP of various kinds. I am somewhat concerned about the fish, mainly  for environmental reasons, due to depletion of wild fish and the impact of most fish farms, but I am not entirely convinced that I can adequately and economically get the full complement of valuable compounds, not just the omega-3's, from artificial sources.

I studiously avoid steaks and the like, since reading of a probable increased risk of colon cancer with such a diet, and figuring in the fact that that is what took my Dad out, after a regular diet of steak for most of his life.

The correct phrase is: to cut off your nose to spite your face.

Ah, so it is- that probably would have been evident if I had thought about it.  I believe I was just copying what Rob said without thinking:

Thanks for the correction cj.

For economy, I can suggest the biproducts of modern processed foods- such as molasses, which is a biproduct of sugar production and contains all of the minerals that have been stripped out of the white sugar.  It's like an iron supplement in every delicious spoon full.  Sea vegetables, such as kelp, are also likely more sustainable from kelp farms, and are dense in various ocean minerals.

Hemp and flax seeds are popular for essential fatty acids and additional protein- bought in bulk an stored in a freezer, they are quite economical (you can grind them with a coffee grinder easily- have to break them apart or they're useless inside the hulls).

You can also buy minerals in bulk that have been chelated with yeasts to be easily absorbed- that's even cheaper, but you end up with the inconvenience of having to buy several lifetime's supply and figuring out where to put it.  Might be able to find a co-op to get in, though, who would be interested.

If well planned and purchased in bulk even from somewhere as expensive as whole foods, I find one can eat very healthfully for about $3 a day- if very well planned and purchased as a co-op, you could get that down to less than $1 a day, with the only remaining need being to fill up the rest of the way on empty calories

TVP, yeast chelated minerals (yeast is delicious as a seasoning), molasses, sour calcium salts, ground flax... actually, add some beans and tomato paste to that, and some hot peppers and cumin, and you have some great chili.

During university, I spent quite a bit of time researching the economically optimal healthy diet.  I had spread sheets comparing price and nutrition, and everything (down to trace elements).  I kind of accidentally learned nutritional science by trying to save money.

Hmm.. 

Thanks, seems like a few things worth looking into.

Oh, and I should have said 'alternative' sources rather than 'artificial' back there.

friendly, hard working, possibly tasty, pleasingly grovelling, defense mechanisms; I do wonder why, that with 5000 species currently on the critically endangered list, we should worry quite so much about an animal that must reach giddy new heights of population in line with global household growth, annually. There are 75 million dogs in the U.S. alone and 5000 breeds of dog in the world. Globally the canine population must number in the low billions. This must be an all time high and an evolutionary victory. At the same time there are only 900 Wild Dogs left in the whole of Africa. The Ethiopian Wolf is down to 500. And the Low Brow Gorilla of Pretoria is down to just one inter-related group, including baby of the family, Bakkies Botha. 

People should be more responsible with dogs but I think it's something that needs to be addressed at a government level. Dogs have a way of doing their own thing - including illicit shagging - and in many third world countries they are semi-wild. That's not a good thing. I was followed by a pack of big dogs for about ten kays when I was out jogging in Turkey last year and it was a very odd feeling. I'm a big, cranky guy and armed with a branch could have held off 2 or 3 of them but not 10 or 12. They were lean and hungry and must have been sizing up my drumsticks.

One thing that must be said about the destruction of strays in Baghdad is that it shows increasing social order - not all bad, considering recent history

There are people who think that way.  I am not one of them.  They are not mean and crazy and adversarial - they are behaving the way evolution has programmed them to behave.  Lions do not lie down with lambs because lambs know lions like them for lunch.  It is in the pig's nature to eat anything.  It is in the dog's nature to eat baby bunnies and little human children if they have learned that those are good protein sources.  Dogs, rabbits, goats, etc are not humans and will never be so.

That doesn't mean it is okay to treat them inhumanely under any circumstances.  If you need to put one down, you do so as quickly and kindly as possible.  If you are raising them for food, you don't need to mistreat them and you don't need to be cruel when slaughter time comes around.

Well, my husband is a professional dog trainer.  And I have watched a lot of videos and read a lot of books on how to read dog body language.  Dogs are better at reading people than people are at reading dogs, BTW. 

To use my own dog that I had to put to sleep last year as an example.  From the time he was a tiny puppy, he was my dog.  He was under my chair, on my feet, next to me whenever I was at home.  But I am not the alpha in our house, my husband is The Big Dog.  My dog was properly submissive to my husband, and would hang out with him if I wasn't at home.  My dog also behaved better for The Big Dog than he did for me.  When I came home, my dog would greet me with a goofy grin that was for me alone.  He never did it for my husband.  And then he was under my chair.

Now, the other dogs in the house are all my husband's dogs.  Not mine.  They like me well enough, will hang out with me, but my husband is their favorite person.  There is no mistaking their preference for my husband and it is both submission and fondness.

Dogs have been bred for work long enough that the breeding has affected their personalities.  No, it is not all individuals of a particular breed, but you can make generalizations that roughly include 80% of a particular breed.  Herding breeds are usually pretty interested in people.  Because they had to work with a handler.  Herding is not easy and it requires team work.  Guardian stock dogs - Anatolian Shepherds, Maremmas, Great Pyrenees, Kuvasz, etc - are bred to hang with the stock.  They can be almost totally indifferent to humans.  And so on.

For other species, it depends on the intelligence of the species/individual, and whether they are predator or prey species.  Cats can be very attached to people or very indifferent depending on the particular cat.  Which I think is partly genetic and partly environmental from the few litters of kittens I have raised.  Horses can be ready to accept you into their herd and can demonstrate what looks like - and most likely is - preference for a particular person.  But most domesticated herd animals are just interested in the feed bucket.  You can easily tell by walking up without a feed bucket or treat in your hand and see how willing they are to make up to you.  Even if you are the person who has been feeding them and giving them treats, see how far you get without.  I have had people say, "maybe you need to hang a ways back", so I do.  Then, "oh, let me get the feed bucket and then she'll come to me.  See how she loves me?"  Yeah, I can see she loves the feed.

Romanticizing a relationship is always asking for trouble down the road - whether with other people, pets, livestock or wild creatures.

The animals that have the hardest time are domesticated rats. I would add mice but they are not on par with rats on several levels.

Rats actually learn things a lot faster than dogs, they can be taught a variety of tricks like dogs.

Someone had a dead rat and tied strings too it and posted a sick video on youtube making it do different dances, it got removed. There are plenty of sick fucks usually involving snakes but there are plenty of happy rat videos as well.

This girl taught her rat to fetch like a dog.

I can.  We live near a little arroyo? canyon? deep gully? hole in the ground? and there are springs which used to be used for a watercress farm.  It is now in the middle of the metro area and surrounded by suburbs.  Anyway, we have rats, opossums, raccoons. blue herons (similar to storks), hawks, and other wildlife living there.  So we have rats.  Under the house, in the house, in the yard.  Rat shit on the kitchen counter can cause me to freak.  There is some blue stuff we toss under the house where the dogs can't reach it and the rats disappear for awhile.  Fortunately, the raccoons don't come near the house as they can fight and really tear up a dog.  Also, I haven't seen any skunks - which is a good thing.

Skunk de-scenter

If you or your dog run into a skunk, mix this up and it will take the scent away immediately without harming you, your clothes, the dog, your lawn.  It doesn't keep, so don't mix it up in advance.

1 quart (a liter is fine) of hydrogen peroxide

1/4 cup (roughly 50 gm) baking soda

1 tbsp (roughly 20 gm) liquid soap (any kind)

Amounts are approximate.  In the US you can buy quart bottles of hydrogen peroxide so I just dump the entire bottle in a bucket.  Usually I'm in a hurry and I'll just tip in some baking soda, give a squirt of the nearest liquid soap on hand and start washing.  Rinse with plenty of water.  You can double or triple the recipe if you and your dog are covered or if your dog is large and furry.  You can use it in the laundry if you have something that is very smelly and just laundry soap is not working.  Great recipe and I can attest it works.

Wild rats are basicly another animal, they are as intelligent but they have not been bred for friendliness towards humans. The difference is akin to the difference in a wolf and a family dog. I have caught a few wild ones with live traps and set them loose in the country where at least they have a decent chance. They do prefer a snug house but they do well wherever they are, I think the only thing that could out survive a wild rat would be a roach.

I'm not saying to torture the wild ones but I think it's twisted to breed an animal to be friendly and loving and then torture it.

I ride the domesticated rat bandwagon because so many people have no idea what a great little animal they are. When's the last time you heard anyone say anything good about rats at all? The age old stigma affects all rats.

Anyway you can buy a small live trap, they work well. Peanut butter is the best bait, they absolutely love it.

edit: a link to one similair to the one I own. http://www.biconet.com/traps/smallLive.html

The "talking snake" from genesis isn't actually a snake in most versions of that tale. The snake is actually a scaly woman-cum-fallen angel, as well as Adam's first wife. "Lillith" -half serpent, half woman, like the mythical Nagas of Bhurma- flew away in disgust of her being subservient to a mundane, mortal husband.

She later returns and (AHEM!) forces herself sexually on Adam despite him trying to resist her, and later seduces Eve as well. Leaving Adam and seducing Eve has become the referential inspiration for Lilith Faire -basically a "Girl's night out" rock concert.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lillith

It's all right there. I'd focus on "Lilith in the Victorian period" from that article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100714/us_time/08599200368200