I read the question as an animal that can be considered a pet. In that case, I don't feel it's wrong. People eat dogs and other animals in other parts of the world. If you meant an animal that was actually someone's pet, then yes, I feel that it's wrong.
________________
Lalala~
Manga Poll
Manga is the Japanese equivalent of comics
with a unique style and following. Join the revolution! Read some manga today!
Join #baka-updates @irc.irchighway.net
RSS Feed
Forums
Is it Wrong to eat Pets?
Poll
Yes
No
You must login to vote.
From User
Message Body
Blah
Member
1:43 pm, Mar 25 2010
Posts: 910
Member
2:33 pm, Mar 25 2010
Posts: 325
2:33 pm, Mar 25 2010
Posts: 325
*WARNING WALL OF TEXT ALERT*
Where to start? The concept of eating animals in and of itself is a highly debated subject, and eating meat despite how natural it truly is, is still frowned upon by some cultures, religious affiliations or organizations. Ultimately it comes down to the evolutionary origins of man, carnivores versus omnivores versus herbivores. For now, we can ignore this large argument and focus on one single point, is it wrong to eat pets, and by pets we are talking certain domesticated animals rather than game animal or livestock. By focusing on this single branch, we'll ignore the vegetarian versus meat-eater argument, and simply assume that eating meat is okay.
The concept of eating a pet is arguable on several grounds, mainly a nutritional ground, an emotional or psychological ground, animal rights, and nature or natural argument. There are many other grounds in which eating a pet is arguable, but I will only cover these four grounds because most arguments can be categorized by one of these four.
The nutritional argument
While livestock and game have their own nutritional values and depending on the environment they are raised in these nutritional values will change, and pets are no exception. In terms of health and nutrition, you have more control over what your pet eats, than what a farmer feeds livestock or what wild game animals eat. You may not be able to stop farmers from pumping antibiotics and hormones into the livestock, or pollutants and contaminants from being ingested by game animals, but you can control what a pet eats and in turn control the nutritional value of the pet.
While animals will always vary in nutritional value in terms of vitamins, minerals, protein and fat, by overfeeding or underfeeding and by exercising your animal you can control how lean it becomes, as well as how tender or stringy it is. In this aspect, pets give more freedom into what you eat, but although it gives this benefit we must ultimately ask, is it feasible?
But let's step back from pets you raise yourself, and look at pet-animals in general. Dog, cat, rabbit, and even hamster will have different nutritional values. The protein content, the flavor, the fat percentage will vary from animal to animal, but from a health aspect this is not a problem. The ingestion of pets, and the ingestion of animals for the sake of nutrition and health can be deemed as all right as long as the animal poses no health risks. Some aquatic creatures, poisonous vegetation and fungi, and even some animals are highly risky to ingest because of the pollutants, poisons, and parasites that exist within them.
Emotional or Psychological
This is the main reason why people are against eating pets, and in fact it is the emotional and psychological bond that people create with pets that have led ways to animal rights movement, so animal rights and emotional/psychological grounds have much in common. In terms of eating an animal that one raised as a pet, the bond they share from raising the animal may prevent a person from eating that animal and in fact it will make them dislike the act of eating pets in general.
Because these animals are commonly raised and domesticated, because these animals are cute and cuddly, we somehow place pet/domesticated animals on a higher pedestal than cows. A dog is considered a part of the family, but I doubt there are many families out there that have a cow as a member. It is because we make this psychological link between family and pet that pets are deemed "inedible", and the mere concept of it is equivalent to eating another human, or a member of the family.
For pet owners, this affiliation between pet and family may be particularly strong, but it will vary depending on the emotions and love one feels for their pet. For people who don't own pets, even they may possess this concept of pet and family affiliation from their surrounding including the media. The western world highly values pets (to the point that pets get elective surgeries, clothes, and spas) and so these values are often instilled into the members of the western world. In other countries that lack the luxury and economy to spend so much money on glamorizing pets, they will also lack this affiliation between pet and family and are therefore are more willing to eat pets.
Ultimately, the emotional and psychological argument is a competition between whether pets are closer to families and therefore humans, or if pets are closer to animals, and therefore livestock.
Animal Rights
The animal rights argument is founded mainly by the concept that animals are living beings and that they can feel pain. Because we as humans can relate to pain, much of our laws that protect animals are based solely on the concept of pain. In the academic world, animal testing can only be done if it is deemed humane, and the main decider for whether the method is humane or not is based on whether the animal feels pain. In some ways this inhibits the academic process, but for research to be accepted, it needs to be done humanely.
Because of this, animals used in experiments are often surgically altered, for example rats will have their spinal cord operated upon so that they cannot feel pain. It makes these animals more costly and ironically, it's only purpose is to (attempt to) retain a person's humanity. Otherwise, operating on animals and inflicting pain may seem cruel (although cruelty and humanity itself has no real scientific purpose).
Similarly, cows, chickens, and even pets (as mentioned by some posts above), people are more accepting of the slaughter of these animals if and only if it is done humanely. The enormous controversy behind KFC is based off of the fact that they inhumanely treat, raise, and kill their animals. Because of that animal rights itself is one founding argument that defends animals and argues against using pet class animals as food, but once again this argument goes back to the concept of where pet stands between animal and human.
Human <----------------- pet -----------------> Animal
Surprisingly this concept in and of itself holds most of the power in the argument of whether or not it is all right to eat pets. For example, despite KFC treating chickens so poorly, it isn't a topic that is as heavily protected compared to pets. What I mean by this is that livestock animals are animals being raised to be KILLED, and because of that the animal rights are much more lenient. Livestock animals are considered animals, and if an animal is packed together in poor environments, starved, or left sick, as long as the food that results from it is healthy people the government doesn't have much of a problem.
Pets on the other hand are heavily protected by animal rights. Here in Ottawa, there are many news articles about the humane society rescuing animals from abusive owners, horders, et-cetera, but the reason why these acts of atrocities invoke so much emotion, media attention, and action from the government (or law), is because we view animals as something more human than animal. It is because we value animals as pets, because we can raise them, and because we often try to associate our feelings with them that we protect them to a greater degree than normal animals (for example, who here has seen one of those crazy cat ladies that say "oh look, the cat is waving at me, or he's saying hello, goodbye, etc. We ultimately personify the animals which makes it harder to eat).
Nature
The concept of animal eating animal cannot be argued, it is a fact that exists in nature. Because of this, many people that can view pets as animals rather than humans will be okay with eating pet animals because it is a natural concept. The act of eating animals in and of itself is a natural fact, and the fact that we can enjoy it (through flavors and taste) does not change this argument. The choice of eating pets will therefore be based on whether or not the pet is delicious or not. This is also a reason why people decide to eat veal rather than full-grown cows, and bear, deer, and other game animals rather than livestock.
Flavor itself is quite responsible for obesity, the success of the snack food industry, and even why some people are quite passionate about eating meat. Flavor itself is a sense that was developed through evolutionary means. Aside from those who have unusual or defective taste buds, a person will naturally enjoy fats, sugars, and meats more. We are programmed to desire these simply because it is more likely to ensure survival in the natural world, but in the developed human world where food is abundant, this desire for tasty foods is actually a double-edged sword that is plaguing us with obesity.
But while obesity itself is more of a social problem then a natural problem, the act of eating animals for taste and flavor itself isn't much of a problem. We are compelled to eat tasty things, and if pets so happen to be tasty, than there isn't anything unnatural about it.
In Conclusion
I doubt many people will get this far in this massive wall of text which makes me wonder why I bothered writing it in the first place, but then again the internet is full of pointless things.
In conclusion, pets can be eaten from a nutritional or scientific aspect, but what compels us not to eat animals is the psychological bond we create and how we view pets. Humans are very illogical creatures, and despite pets being a good source of readily available nutrients, it is because we affiliate pets as closer to human than animals that make it difficult for us to eat them. Similarly, we view livestock and game animals as animals and because of that we can eat them without much guilt. Of course, to reiterate, this argument is based on the assumption that eating animals is right, but that in and of itself is an argument that will probably never be settled as long as we exist as intelligent beings.
Where to start? The concept of eating animals in and of itself is a highly debated subject, and eating meat despite how natural it truly is, is still frowned upon by some cultures, religious affiliations or organizations. Ultimately it comes down to the evolutionary origins of man, carnivores versus omnivores versus herbivores. For now, we can ignore this large argument and focus on one single point, is it wrong to eat pets, and by pets we are talking certain domesticated animals rather than game animal or livestock. By focusing on this single branch, we'll ignore the vegetarian versus meat-eater argument, and simply assume that eating meat is okay.
The concept of eating a pet is arguable on several grounds, mainly a nutritional ground, an emotional or psychological ground, animal rights, and nature or natural argument. There are many other grounds in which eating a pet is arguable, but I will only cover these four grounds because most arguments can be categorized by one of these four.
The nutritional argument
While livestock and game have their own nutritional values and depending on the environment they are raised in these nutritional values will change, and pets are no exception. In terms of health and nutrition, you have more control over what your pet eats, than what a farmer feeds livestock or what wild game animals eat. You may not be able to stop farmers from pumping antibiotics and hormones into the livestock, or pollutants and contaminants from being ingested by game animals, but you can control what a pet eats and in turn control the nutritional value of the pet.
While animals will always vary in nutritional value in terms of vitamins, minerals, protein and fat, by overfeeding or underfeeding and by exercising your animal you can control how lean it becomes, as well as how tender or stringy it is. In this aspect, pets give more freedom into what you eat, but although it gives this benefit we must ultimately ask, is it feasible?
But let's step back from pets you raise yourself, and look at pet-animals in general. Dog, cat, rabbit, and even hamster will have different nutritional values. The protein content, the flavor, the fat percentage will vary from animal to animal, but from a health aspect this is not a problem. The ingestion of pets, and the ingestion of animals for the sake of nutrition and health can be deemed as all right as long as the animal poses no health risks. Some aquatic creatures, poisonous vegetation and fungi, and even some animals are highly risky to ingest because of the pollutants, poisons, and parasites that exist within them.
Emotional or Psychological
This is the main reason why people are against eating pets, and in fact it is the emotional and psychological bond that people create with pets that have led ways to animal rights movement, so animal rights and emotional/psychological grounds have much in common. In terms of eating an animal that one raised as a pet, the bond they share from raising the animal may prevent a person from eating that animal and in fact it will make them dislike the act of eating pets in general.
Because these animals are commonly raised and domesticated, because these animals are cute and cuddly, we somehow place pet/domesticated animals on a higher pedestal than cows. A dog is considered a part of the family, but I doubt there are many families out there that have a cow as a member. It is because we make this psychological link between family and pet that pets are deemed "inedible", and the mere concept of it is equivalent to eating another human, or a member of the family.
For pet owners, this affiliation between pet and family may be particularly strong, but it will vary depending on the emotions and love one feels for their pet. For people who don't own pets, even they may possess this concept of pet and family affiliation from their surrounding including the media. The western world highly values pets (to the point that pets get elective surgeries, clothes, and spas) and so these values are often instilled into the members of the western world. In other countries that lack the luxury and economy to spend so much money on glamorizing pets, they will also lack this affiliation between pet and family and are therefore are more willing to eat pets.
Ultimately, the emotional and psychological argument is a competition between whether pets are closer to families and therefore humans, or if pets are closer to animals, and therefore livestock.
Animal Rights
The animal rights argument is founded mainly by the concept that animals are living beings and that they can feel pain. Because we as humans can relate to pain, much of our laws that protect animals are based solely on the concept of pain. In the academic world, animal testing can only be done if it is deemed humane, and the main decider for whether the method is humane or not is based on whether the animal feels pain. In some ways this inhibits the academic process, but for research to be accepted, it needs to be done humanely.
Because of this, animals used in experiments are often surgically altered, for example rats will have their spinal cord operated upon so that they cannot feel pain. It makes these animals more costly and ironically, it's only purpose is to (attempt to) retain a person's humanity. Otherwise, operating on animals and inflicting pain may seem cruel (although cruelty and humanity itself has no real scientific purpose).
Similarly, cows, chickens, and even pets (as mentioned by some posts above), people are more accepting of the slaughter of these animals if and only if it is done humanely. The enormous controversy behind KFC is based off of the fact that they inhumanely treat, raise, and kill their animals. Because of that animal rights itself is one founding argument that defends animals and argues against using pet class animals as food, but once again this argument goes back to the concept of where pet stands between animal and human.
Human <----------------- pet -----------------> Animal
Surprisingly this concept in and of itself holds most of the power in the argument of whether or not it is all right to eat pets. For example, despite KFC treating chickens so poorly, it isn't a topic that is as heavily protected compared to pets. What I mean by this is that livestock animals are animals being raised to be KILLED, and because of that the animal rights are much more lenient. Livestock animals are considered animals, and if an animal is packed together in poor environments, starved, or left sick, as long as the food that results from it is healthy people the government doesn't have much of a problem.
Pets on the other hand are heavily protected by animal rights. Here in Ottawa, there are many news articles about the humane society rescuing animals from abusive owners, horders, et-cetera, but the reason why these acts of atrocities invoke so much emotion, media attention, and action from the government (or law), is because we view animals as something more human than animal. It is because we value animals as pets, because we can raise them, and because we often try to associate our feelings with them that we protect them to a greater degree than normal animals (for example, who here has seen one of those crazy cat ladies that say "oh look, the cat is waving at me, or he's saying hello, goodbye, etc. We ultimately personify the animals which makes it harder to eat).
Nature
The concept of animal eating animal cannot be argued, it is a fact that exists in nature. Because of this, many people that can view pets as animals rather than humans will be okay with eating pet animals because it is a natural concept. The act of eating animals in and of itself is a natural fact, and the fact that we can enjoy it (through flavors and taste) does not change this argument. The choice of eating pets will therefore be based on whether or not the pet is delicious or not. This is also a reason why people decide to eat veal rather than full-grown cows, and bear, deer, and other game animals rather than livestock.
Flavor itself is quite responsible for obesity, the success of the snack food industry, and even why some people are quite passionate about eating meat. Flavor itself is a sense that was developed through evolutionary means. Aside from those who have unusual or defective taste buds, a person will naturally enjoy fats, sugars, and meats more. We are programmed to desire these simply because it is more likely to ensure survival in the natural world, but in the developed human world where food is abundant, this desire for tasty foods is actually a double-edged sword that is plaguing us with obesity.
But while obesity itself is more of a social problem then a natural problem, the act of eating animals for taste and flavor itself isn't much of a problem. We are compelled to eat tasty things, and if pets so happen to be tasty, than there isn't anything unnatural about it.
In Conclusion
I doubt many people will get this far in this massive wall of text which makes me wonder why I bothered writing it in the first place, but then again the internet is full of pointless things.
In conclusion, pets can be eaten from a nutritional or scientific aspect, but what compels us not to eat animals is the psychological bond we create and how we view pets. Humans are very illogical creatures, and despite pets being a good source of readily available nutrients, it is because we affiliate pets as closer to human than animals that make it difficult for us to eat them. Similarly, we view livestock and game animals as animals and because of that we can eat them without much guilt. Of course, to reiterate, this argument is based on the assumption that eating animals is right, but that in and of itself is an argument that will probably never be settled as long as we exist as intelligent beings.
Slumbering Remnant
Member3:01 pm, Mar 25 2010
Posts: 657
it actually depends what you consider a "pet" I mean someone could say a cow is their pet. i mean there are cases when the owner and the pet are stranded or some situation with no food. and you know what happens? The pet attacks the human and eats him/her. real cases like that.
________________
]
I hear you say "Why?" Always "Why?" You see things; and you say "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
________________
]I hear you say "Why?" Always "Why?" You see things; and you say "Why?" But I dream things that never were; and I say "Why not?"
Member
3:33 pm, Mar 25 2010
Posts: 101
No way. That's sick. If you have to in order to survive than by all means dig in (just like people would eat other people if they had to) but just for the heck of it... no way.
It's like eating your friend.
However if you're talking about "pet" animals in general like mice, lizards, snakes, dogs, cats, hamsters, parrots...
well... I am personally a vegetarian but if for the meat-eaters, there's nothing wrong with it per say but... it's just very uncommon to.
It's like eating your friend.
However if you're talking about "pet" animals in general like mice, lizards, snakes, dogs, cats, hamsters, parrots...
well... I am personally a vegetarian but if for the meat-eaters, there's nothing wrong with it per say but... it's just very uncommon to.
Peaceful Dictator™
Member
2:12 am, Mar 26 2010
Posts: 742
Quote from blakraven66
I think a few of us are getting off track here. It's not eating pets but animals considered as pets in general.
thanks i was just about to clarify that.
________________
.http://westsiders2.deviantart.com/
nom
Member
4:06 am, Mar 26 2010
Posts: 1698
I voted no.
In my honest opinion, I wouldn't eat my pet that I had personally raised (because that'd be a bit difficult for me to stomach. Literally.) but if someone else were to eat theirs, I'm pretty indifferent to it. I've eaten beef and pork. Those cows and pigs could very well be someone's pet somewhere out there. So, I'm not really against it..
In my honest opinion, I wouldn't eat my pet that I had personally raised (because that'd be a bit difficult for me to stomach. Literally.) but if someone else were to eat theirs, I'm pretty indifferent to it. I've eaten beef and pork. Those cows and pigs could very well be someone's pet somewhere out there. So, I'm not really against it..
Coffee Clouds
Member
5:53 am, Mar 26 2010
Posts: 66
Quote from westsiders2
i once read in the metro that a priest put a ginuea pig recipe in a cook book and it was recieved angrily. People seem to be thinking that eating mice, dogs, cats etc are worng?
What do you think?
edit:
could you fix the spelling for the topic please thanks.
What do you think?
edit:
could you fix the spelling for the topic please thanks.
Well the question to your answer is no, it isn't wrong in the slightest to eat a animal considered to be a pet.
A cow can be considered a pet, so can a cat or a dog or even a pig; as far as I know, people do eat them in various forms and not to mention other animals that one can call a pet do they not? So it mearly depends on the person and cultrual influence rather then whats morally correct.
Last edited by rugal14 at 6:31 am, Mar 26 2010
________________
Your from the order? I've never seen you before.
Quote from x50 50x
I have seen your post history, you don't get to say anything I say is ridiculous
Raw
Member
5:01 pm, Mar 26 2010
Posts: 874
Quote from fr33noob
Quote from MasamiAkane
It's like eating my child. 
could i eat your babies?
I would enjoy it
lol
________________
No one gives a shit what trite garbage you write here.
Member
5:06 pm, Mar 26 2010
Posts: 22
only if they don't taste delicious
Member
5:47 pm, Mar 26 2010
Posts: 170
5:47 pm, Mar 26 2010
Posts: 170
The bond is too strong between me and my dogs for me to violate that on a whim. I would like to state that I would never eat my dogs, but I have never been starving and on the verge of death, so I can't tell you how I would react in that situation.
Anyway, I would certainly not eat a pet unless it was a life or death decision.
Anyway, I would certainly not eat a pet unless it was a life or death decision.
Ojiisan
Member
7:32 pm, Mar 26 2010
Posts: 85
Well, considering that people got all sort of things as pets these days..
Yeah, I'd eat something that others see as a pet.
Yeah, I'd eat something that others see as a pet.
Ooo~ Custom Title!
Member6:23 pm, Mar 27 2010
Posts: 1279
Quote from Kitteh_13
I'd eat it as long as I didn't need to kill it.
I would be a vegetarian if I had to kill my own meat. D:
I would be a vegetarian if I had to kill my own meat. D:
AHEM SISTER!
________________
Click the Pokemon.
Member
6:32 pm, Mar 27 2010
Posts: 1668
Warn: Banned
Quote from E-chan52
Quote from Kitteh_13
I'd eat it as long as I didn't need to kill it.
I would be a vegetarian if I had to kill my own meat. D:
I would be a vegetarian if I had to kill my own meat. D:
AHEM SISTER!
holy crap, Kitteh_13 wants to eat her pets if it dies.
Is that why there's no grave for your pets ever? ________________
Gay book discussion thread
Quote from you_no_see_me_
this is not about cannibalism...please get back on topic
Quote from Toto
I think it is exactly the topic. I see nothing wrong.
Member
3:12 am, Mar 28 2010
Posts: 59
if its meat its food. i mean ppl call almost anything a pet, domesticated or not.
Sweetly Macabre
Member
3:21 am, Mar 28 2010
Posts: 1005
I wouldn't eat my own pet 
Goodness no, too much emotional attachment!
But I do eat meat that comes from animals which could potentially be pets.
Goodness no, too much emotional attachment!
But I do eat meat that comes from animals which could potentially be pets.
