Quote from Fusion

Insisting that dogs are any more special than any other non-human animal is pretty ridiculous, and doesn't have any real logic behind it

Dogs have been selectively and carefully bred for centuries into a domesticated pet which is fully capable of working side-by-side with humans. It's not too ridiculous to say there's a bit of a difference between eating dogs, and eating animals which are bred and raised specifically as food sources and nothing else.

Explains our constant habit of wars. Oh wait, animals fight all the time! Nevermind!

Quote from Exilement

Uh, that's kind of a slippery slope.

You're asking if we'd rather end the life of a rare, endangered animal, or a man trying to kill it. Humans are overpopulated, I think I'd rather spare one asshole who's illegally poaching an endangered species instead of killing it myself.

That doesn't mean I "put animals before men". It just means the scenario you created has an obvious answer.

Not at all. We're talking to kill a man, someone probably with a family and friends. And at the other side there is an animal, who just eat and lives; yes, they can suffer like us, but they are not like us.

Quote from Exilement

Dogs have been selectively and carefully bred for centuries into a domesticated pet which is fully capable of working side-by-side with humans. It's not too ridiculous to say there's a bit of a difference between eating dogs, and eating animals which are bred and raised specifically as food sources and nothing else.

I wasn't saying that there is no dog that has an important difference between it and other animals, what I meant that it is silly to say one should never eat a dog if they can eat something else, because there are breeds of dog that are bred to be food.

oh while we're on the subject of love for animals it might be worth checking this out

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2154283/Cats-away-Artist-turns-dead-pet-flying-helicopter-killed-car.html

i lol'd

Quote from Fusion

I wasn't saying that there is no dog that has an important difference between it and other animals, what I meant that it is silly to say one should never eat a dog if they can eat something else, because there are breeds of dog that are bred to be food.

like what?

@Chunkeh - This is going to haunt my dreams.

Quote from † renZen †

like what?

I assume you're asking for examples of the breeds of dog I was talking about. I found a specific article on Wikipedia about a Hawaiian example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaiian_Poi_Dog
However, that breed is extinct. In Vietnam, dog is apparently eaten quite frequently, and in Korea it was eaten just as much before Western influence resulted in dog meat being outlawed, although it still goes on in many places. It's very difficult to find specific examples because eating any dog is seen as a 'horrific event' by most white people and I think reports that involve words like that are too biased to be acceptable. I've found this: http://www.aapn.org/fooddogs.html which talks about dogs being raised for food in more southern regions of China as well.
It's also mentioned on these pages:
http://coombs.anu.edu.au/~vern/wild-trade/eats/eats.html See "Passage to Vietnam" in particular
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1735647.stm

Quote from Fusion

I wasn't saying that there is no dog that has an important difference between it and other animals, what I meant that it is silly to say one should never eat a dog if they can eat something else, because there are breeds of dog that are bred to be food.

They're raised as food, not bred for it. There's a difference. Dogs don't have much meat, they have a lean frame which was selectively favorable for what they were bred to do.

I'm just saying raising an animal that's bred as a food source, then eating it, should be preferable to raising a working, domesticated animal as food. At the very least it's not a ridiculous, illogical position.

edit: Didn't know about that poi dog, that's interesting. Guess that wouldn't apply to what I'm talking about. AFAIK no modern breeds are actually meant to be eaten.

What would dog taste like?

I would say that logically we are on the same level as any animal, however, animals have instincts to prolong their race's survival, which is what we have. We place ourselves above animals because our morals make us do so, and our morals were instilled within us through evolution in order to enable the survival of the species.

Quote from Automaton

I would say that logically we are on the same level as any animal, however, animals have instincts to prolong their race's survival, which is what we have. We place ourselves above animals because our morals make us do so, and our morals were instilled within us through evolution in order to enable the survival of the species.

We're the only animals capable of creativity and intellectualism. I think those two things alone put us above other animals in some way, logically.

That's a tricky question. As I am a devout Baptist, I believe man was created above animals, and I agree with what you are saying about the pyramid and the circle thing. However, I am currently working on a master's degree in biology, and I think that animal conservation is very important. Now, I wouldn't go shooting poachers over it. (Though, illegal hunting of animals is a serious crime.)

Quote from Exilement

We're the only animals capable of creativity and intellectualism. I think those two things alone put us above other animals in some way, logically.

It's a tough thing to debate, but I would say it doesn't really mean we should place ourselves above animals other than due to our morals. Why should intelligence, no matter how superior, be used to determine our superiority? I don't, for example, think that dolphins are "better" than turtles, or frogs, or cats or dogs. I suppose the opposing argument is that if this is the case then there truly isn't any means of ranking the living, and I would have to agree with that.