Why are dogs pets and pigs food? Man’s attitude towards animals is never rational.

通过admin

Why are dogs pets and pigs food? Man’s attitude towards animals is never rational.

Author: (America) Hal Herzog
Integration: Li Yan
Why are dogs pets and pigs food? The question itself is enough to catch people’s attention. In recent years, there have been endless debates about animal protection, especially when it comes to dogs, cats and other animals that are usually domestic pets. For example, the Yulin Dog Meat Festival every summer will always set off a bloody storm in the public opinion field. One of the main viewpoints of those who oppose eating dog meat is that dogs have different meanings to human beings from other animals, while those who hold the opposite view argue that dogs should have equal lives with pigs, cows and chickens, and it is unreasonable to oppose eating dog meat alone.
Compared with the arguments that seem to be unable to convince each other, Hal Herzog, an American human-animal relationist and professor of psychology at the University of West Carolina, wrote why dogs are pets and pigs are food? 》
(Why It Is So Hard to Think Straight About Animals)
It is much more peaceful. He doesn’t try to choose one of the above two viewpoints to support it, thinking it is more "correct", but discusses the complexity, inconsistency and reasons of moral concepts from the psychological level of people.
With regard to people’s attitude towards other species, the author expressed his opinion in the first sentence of the preface: "People often think about other species in a very illogical way." In the book, he used one story after another recorded for many years to show the different moral attitudes of rebellious people towards animals, and how many contradictions exist among them. Why can’t dogs eat but pigs can? Why is the giant panda more popular than the Chinese giant salamander? Why is it that catching dead fish in the market is entertainment, but if catching dead cats is considered cruel? People are not as rational as they think, at least when they treat animals.
Why is this so? The author said that the purpose of this book is not to change anyone’s moral stance or the way of treating animals, but to guide readers to think more deeply about the psychological logic and moral implications behind the relationship between human beings and animals. Compared with arguing endlessly about specific issues, facing the fact that there are a lot of moral inconsistencies in our cognition and behavior soberly and calmly can help us recognize human nature and the way in which reason and emotion interact with each other in our brains.
The following article is taken from Why Dogs Are Pets and Pigs Are Food with the authorization of the publishing house.
"Why dogs are pets and pigs are food", by Hal Herzog, translated by Leo Sen, Hainan Publishing House, June 2019.
Why do you like this and hate that? -because it’s cute.
It is easier to empathize with dogs than fleas. -Eric Green(Eric Grenen)
Judy Barrett of Greensburg, North Carolina
(Judy Barrett)
There is a question. She and her husband are both blue jays fans. They spent a lot of money in the backyard, hoping to attract blue birds to nest, and even bought a snake-proof blue nest box and a unique bird glass jar. Judy will prepare a nest of earthworms in the refrigerator so that the bluebird can enjoy the worm meal at any time. Judy’s family welcomes bluebirds to nest with open arms, but the reality is not as good as expected. When they were not paying attention, an ordinary sparrow couple occupied the nest box and laid five small sparrow eggs in the future bluebird home.
At a loss, Judy sent a letter to The New York Times’s "moralist"
(The Ethicist)
Columnist Randy Cohen(Randy Cohen)
This column is based on Abby mailbox.(Dear Abby)
Style, quick questions and answers for daily moral problems.
Judy asked, is it ethical to destroy the low-grade sparrow eggs because she wants to keep the nest for the lovely bluebird?
Cohen’s answer is no. "In the face of morality, loveliness doesn’t count."
Logically speaking, Cohen is right. But although loveliness is not important in the narrow sense of moral philosophy, it is quite important to most people and even affects people’s attitude towards this creature. For example, the survey shows that the amount of money people are willing to donate to save endangered creatures depends on the size of their eyes. This is undoubtedly a death knell for the endangered Chinese giant salamander. Chinese giant salamander is the largest and probably the ugliest amphibian in the world. Its eyes are bright and its 2-meter-long body is surrounded by a dark brown sticky epidermis. Environmental groups will never publish the picture of Chinese giant salamander on the donation leaflet, after all, it looks too ugly. In contrast, another endangered animal in China is much more pleasant, that is, the panda whose eyes are infinitely magnified by the outer black circle. Their shapes are so adorable that they even become the symbol of WWF.
Chinese giant salamander
There are 65,000 species of mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians in the world, but only a few animals are concerned by human beings. Why do we care about giant pandas instead of Chinese giant salamanders? Why do we care about eagles and not vultures? Why do we care about bluebirds instead of sparrows? Why do we care about cheetahs instead of palm fruit bats?
(the only male mammal that can secrete milk)
? Whether we care about a particular animal usually depends on its own characteristics-whether they are lovable, what size they are, what shape their heads are, and whether they are furry.(not bad)
Still sticky.(disgusting)
Yes, whether they are similar to humans, points will be deducted if they have too many feet or too few feet. Whether they have disgusting habits, such as eating excrement or sucking blood, has something to do with their taste, but their influence is not as great as we think.
Human beings always think about the relationship with different animals in an illogical way, and it is difficult to make a final conclusion. We always think that we are rational animals, but the research of cognitive psychology and behavioral economics shows that human thinking and behavior are often illogical. For example, it has been reported that when researchers privately asked respondents how much they would like to donate to prevent oil pond pollution and protect waterfowl habitats, on average, the respondents expressed their willingness to save 2,000 birds with $80, 20,000 birds with $78 and 200,000 birds with $88. Sometimes, even animals can make more rational decisions than humans. A recent report pointed out that when choosing a new house, a group of ants can often make a more rational choice than human house buyers.
What is the state of human psychology that makes it impossible to think logically in the face of animals? In fact, the so-called human thinking is simply a brain storm that combines intuition, learning, language, culture, instinct and psychological shortcuts, so it is really difficult for us to deal with the relationship with other species logically and rationally.
Before animal morality, sensibility trumps reason.
For a long time, people have been discussing whether human moral sense comes from emotion or rational speculation. David hume, an 18th-century philosopher, thought that moral sense originated from emotion, while Kant thought that morality originated from reason. When I became interested in the psychology of human-animal relationship, I decided to find out what people were thinking when they thought about moral issues related to other animals. At that time, the field of moral psychology was Harvard psychologist lawrence kohlberg.
(Lawrence Kohlberg)
Like Kant, Kohlberg also believes that all moral decisions mostly come from careful thinking: we weigh the pros and cons of actions before making logical decisions. Kohlberg mainly studies the development of children’s moral thinking. He will tell the children a dilemma story, and then ask them to make a decision and explain the reasons behind the thinking. Kohlberg’s most classic story is about Hans, a poor man who stole expensive pills from a greedy boss to save his wife with cancer. When judging whether Hans had the right to steal drugs, Kohlberg’s children played the spirit of logicians. They weighed the possibility of Hans being arrested and the happiness that his wife might bring when she recovered.
Me and my student Shelley galvin.
(Shelley Galvin)
This experimental method is used to study how people view the animals tested in the laboratory. Our research method is very simple. Respondents can analyze a series of animal experimental situations by themselves, and then we ask respondents whether they agree or disagree with specific experiments and the reasons behind the decision: in one experiment, researchers must take stem cells from monkey embryos and transplant them into the brains of adult monkeys in order to treat Alzheimer’s disease; In order to study the role of genes and experience in the development of complex action patterns, another experimenter requested that the forelimbs of newborn mice be amputated. Both experiments are based on real experiments.
About half of the respondents accepted the monkey experiment, while only a quarter of the respondents supported the mouse amputation research. As far as monkey brain experiments are concerned, children tend to think rationally and carefully weigh the costs and benefits of sacrificing animal rights. But when faced with the issue of amputation of rats, children take a different attitude. Facing the amputation experiment, children wrote down such things as: "I object to this experiment", "Please think about the face of the amputated mouse", or even "it’s too much". Our interviewees responded emotionally to the amputation experiment of young rats instead of rationally.
Judging from the main theories of psychological and moral development, we estimate that the interviewees will take logic as their thinking principle. However, we found that children let their emotions break away. This result is obviously related to Jon Heder, the leader of contemporary moral psychology.
(Jon Haidt)
As he said, Heidt thinks that emotion often trumps reason on moral issues. Like most psychologists, Heidegger believes that human cognition involves two processes. First, it is instinctive, quick, subconscious, effortless and emotional, and then it is thoughtful, conscious, logical and completely slow. Usually, only after our intuitive judgment can we get rid of the cognitive fog and re-examine whether the original judgment dominated by emotions is appropriate.
Heidett believes that most human beings use the above two systems to make moral judgments, but illogical intuitive systems usually dominate. Heidt’s theory seems to fully echo Lucy, a special educator and animal rights activist I visited. When I asked her what role logic and emotion played in the practice of animal activism, Lucy said, "This is usually related to emotion, but in many cases, I have to find rational evidence for my emotional response, so that I can defend my position and influence others."
When people are asked if that family can eat their pets, most people will immediately categorically deny: "No! Of course you can’t eat your own dog! " But when you ask the other person to think rationally and explain what’s wrong with eating dead and painless animal carcasses, almost all the interviewees can’t give a logical explanation. Heidt called this judgment "a moral problem that makes people laugh and cry." The real reason is nausea, because it is so disgusting.
University of Pennsylvania psychologist Paul Rozin
(Paul Rozin)
Think that nausea is also a moral emotion. Generally speaking, human beings think it is disgusting to have sex with brothers and sisters. The products of the body, such as feces, urine and menstruation, are also extremely disgusting to people, and this aversion can be said to be regardless of racial culture.
We’re all hypocrites?
Is the life of spiders as important as that of egrets and human beings? Of course, logically speaking, this is completely correct. -Joan Diar
Stop making fun. No matter in any era or culture, human beings have always been hypocrites. When we criticize the hypocrisy of others, we also reveal our own absurdity. -Jon Heder.
In June, 2009, the American Veterinary Association decided to let the 10,000 veterinarians and auxiliary professionals attending the annual meeting build a sense of team trust with the wonderful activities of catching big fish. People for the ethical treatment of animals is obviously quite dissatisfied with this design, and Ashley Byrne, the project manager of the organization,
(Ashley Byrne)
An article published in the Los Angeles Times wrote: "It’s crazy to kill animals so that participants can pick up their bodies. And what a bad message does it send to the public when veterinarians take pleasure in catching the carcasses of big fish? " This passage was regarded as a laughing stock by the TV media. At first, I thought Ashley seemed too harsh. However, people for the ethical treatment of animals later issued a statement, saying, Will the participants laugh so much when they see the men in gray hats throwing the dead cats? Only then did I realize that the organization was right. Why do humans find it interesting to catch dead fish, but not the dead cat?
The deep connection between man and pet
(The Powerful Bond Between People and Pets)
Author elizabeth anderson.(Elizabeth Anderson)
I am quite confused about the inconsistency of this moral attitude. For example, she can’t understand why many pet owners wear mink coats. Anderson wrote: "I really can’t understand why owners who love cats and dogs enough to kiss them are indifferent to the fact that seals are shot in the head, skinned or mink are electrocuted by anus." In fact, this is not surprising. Those who melt instantly when they see kittens are also likely to love the color of fur. Even people who stand up for animal rights often make such contradictory actions. Scott Plous, a social psychologist, found that among the animal rights activists he interviewed, nearly 70% thought that banning clothing made of animal fur should be regarded as the primary goal of the animal protection movement, but they also admitted that they also wore leather products.
Psychologists have always known that people often don’t do what they say. A generally accepted attitude theory is called A-B-C model, which holds that the so-called attitude contains three elements-emotion: your emotional feeling about a thing; Behavior: how your attitude affects your external behavior; Cognition: How much do you know about one thing? Many times, these elements will work together. Rob Bass is a good example. Rob, a 52-year-old philosopher, has always lived a smooth life. In 2001, he read an article by anthropologist Mylan Engel.
(Mylan Engel)
After writing the article, life has changed greatly. Rob was surprised by Engel’s persuasive remarks against meat. He spent three whole weeks hoping to find out Engel’s logical mistakes or contradictions. After a month, he gave in completely. When he found out what Engel said was true(Perceptual change)
He knew that he had to stop eating meat.(Behavior change)
. A few weeks later, when he walked into the cafeteria on campus with his colleagues, he just smelled the strong smell of fried hamburger meat, and his body immediately responded: "disgusting, that smell is disgusting."(Emotional change)
. "Engel’s article made Rob have a cyclical change in emotion, perception and behavior. Now, Rob and his wife Gail Dean(Gayle Dean)
After a similar transition period, both became vegans. They oppose any form of animal exploitation, and Rob also teaches animal rights issues in moral courses.
But Rob and Gail are very few examples. Most people are not only indifferent, but also will not feel frustrated because of their contradictory behavior towards animals. The Los Angeles Times was commissioned to survey American adults’ views on the following statement by random sampling: "Do you agree that animals and humans are the same in all important points of view?" The newspaper said that about 47% people agreed with this view. I am rather skeptical about the results of the survey, so I want to know what my students think of the above statement. I made a survey of 100 students. The questionnaire not only included questions from the Los Angeles Times, but also added many questions about the treatment of animals. The results show that my suspicion is wrong. It’s just right that about 47% of students think that animals are as important as humans, but even so, it has no effect on how they view "animals being used by humans". Among the students who think that animals are as important as human beings, about half are in favor of animal experiments, 40% think it is feasible to remove animal organs to save patients, and 90% eat animals that are the same as human beings in all important points of view more often.
Why can people be so calm about the contradiction between their words and deeds? Most people’s attitude towards how other creatures are treated is exactly what philosophers call "no position"
(nonattitudes)
Or "vague position"(vacuous attitudes)
, by a large number of unrelated ideas combined with simple thoughts. In contrast, the belief system of Rob and Gail was established after thinking deeply about the moral problems related to animals. The relationship between human beings and other species is a very complicated moral issue, and most people who consider themselves animal lovers generally have a compromise idea. For example, the National Polling Center once conducted a survey. When the respondents were asked "How do you feel about animal experiments?", only one-fifth of the respondents would express strong approval or opposition.
Although there are many exceptions, the evidence shows that most people don’t pay so much attention to animal issues. In 2000, Gallup asked American adults to rate the importance of the following social issues, such as abortion rights, animal rights, gun management, environmental protection, women’s rights and consumer rights. As a result, animal rights came last. In 2001, the American humane society organization was commissioned to investigate which animal protection group contributed the most, only to find that half of the respondents couldn’t even name an animal protection group. In addition, a survey shows that only 2% of the boycotters who participate in the consumer movement care about how animals are treated. The fact is, for most people, except for personal pets, how animals are treated is really not their priority.
Billboards put up by vegetarians.
Why are we like this?
Leon festinger, 1950.
(Leon Festinger)
Put forward a heavyweight theory in psychology-when our beliefs, behaviors and attitudes are at odds, we will enter what he calls "cognitive dissonance"(cognitive dissonance)
The state of. Because cognitive dissonance brings extremely uncomfortable feelings, people try to reduce this kind of trouble caused by mental inconsistency. For example, we may change our beliefs or behaviors, or deny or distort evidence about facts.
Environmental ethicist Chris Dimm
(Chris Diehm)
Believe that human beings strive for moral consistency. He said that whenever he pointed out to the other side that the way he treated animals was inconsistent, the other side would try to correct their behavior as much as possible, or at least they would try to justify it so as to make themselves appear to be one with words. He wrote: "We have to admit that the moral relationship between human beings and animals is a confused and contradictory road: cats are pets and cows are food. When you point out the absurdity of the other person’s behavior, they will try to rationalize their behavior or make some changes in their comfort zone. I think it is a good thing to pursue moral consistency, and when people’s words and deeds are different, it will trigger us to carry out moral dialectics and thinking. "
Chris is a philosopher, and he is more concerned about the efforts of human beings to integrate their beliefs and behaviors. I am a psychologist, and I am more concerned about the carelessness shown by human beings in the face of moral issues between themselves and animals. In my experience, most people, whether cockfighters, animal researchers or pet owners, will never admit their mistakes when you point out their moral inconsistency in the face of animals.
(Sometimes I laugh quite unnaturally)
.
In a word, moral consistency is not only vague but also almost out of reach. In the real world, whether it’s our minds or emotions, we can’t decide how to treat animals.
Author: Hal Herzog
Integration: Li Yan
Editor: Li Yongbo, He Anan
Proofreading: Zhai Yongjun
Reporting/feedback
Everyone is searching.
Are dogs carnivorous? Are dogs carnivorous or herbivorous? Are dogs carnivorous or omnivorous? Are dogs animals?



issue

Raphael Jr.

I used to think it was wrong to eat dog meat. When someone asked me why I ate pork, I wouldn’t refute it. What I should say now is that I don’t care what other people eat, but please don’t deliberately kill them to eat meat. A happy death is better than a tortured death. I couldn’t accept eating dog meat before. One thing is that I have a dog myself. Another thing is that many dog shops are very cruel. There are also many people who steal dogs. In summary, they will be very cruel to eat dog meat.

2019-07-22

report


answer

Raphael Jr.

Hehe, get high yourself, make a gentleman not a villain.

2019-07-27

report


answer

Raphael Jr.

What’s the difference between your current behavior and a mad dog? What do you think if you say you won, you won’t push your luck, not a mad dog? A word has exposed your own position on yourself. A just person is ok. A just messenger who talks online is awesome.

2019-07-27

report


answer

All 83 replies

God of the origin of all evil.

Humans take the contribution of animals as the standard. In ancient times, humans raised cattle for plowing, so no one ate them or seldom ate them at that time, so the status of cattle was very high in the past. In ancient times, dogs were raised to look after caregivers and hunt, and their status was not as high as that of cattle, while pigs and chickens raised them for only one purpose, that is, to eat, and their status was very low. With the development of society, cattle became less important, so humans no longer relied on them.

2019-07-23

report


answer

XiaoyangSHuo esports sh

Fans in the game field

Moreover, what we are discussing is the handling of urban dogs, not the so-called dog dealers and dog thieves, but the conflict between urban stray dogs and people! Look at the latest news for yourself, how many conflicts between dogs and people there are! Look at the foreign regulations on pet dogs! I think China’s laws should be learned from foreign countries, so as not to be wanton under the pretext of law!

2019-07-26

report


answer

XiaoyangSHuo esports sh

Fans in the game field

What data do you call this? Do you have specific figures and proportions? How many restaurant dogs are stolen? What’s the ratio? Is there any police intervention? How many dog owners have found their dogs in restaurants? Do you have these data? You can’t deny everything just by one case. This is cynical, not a rational human thought! ! !

2019-07-26

report


answer

All 26 replies

Zhenweiai 0Y

The statement that life is equal is the biggest lie. Human beings are born equal, but life is never equal, and human beings will always have priority over other lives, unless you stop being a man. Life is only a certain combination of matter, and it is only a machine in essence. Life itself is not worthy of respect, but the rationality and emotion it shows. The reason why we don’t abuse cats and dogs is that their high rationality and emotional ability can stimulate human empathy. No one will empathize with plants or bacteria, and substitute human emotional ability into animals to draw the absurd conclusion that all beings are equal. This is the biggest mistake of animal protection organizations.

2019-07-23

report


answer

Arouet discussion

Understand people, the essence of life is a complex machine.

2019-07-27

report


answer

Zhenweiai 0Y

If an animal approaches or threatens Danone’s status, human beings will definitely kill him.

2019-07-25

report


answer

全部11条回复

True base is not afraid of corruption.

This is a false proposition, pigs can also be pets, dogs can also be food! I am a dog lover. At the same time, I also eat dog meat and I don’t restrict others from eating dog meat. I just don’t approve of stealing dogs, beating dogs and abusing dogs. Love dogs should not be extreme, hate dogs should not be excessive, love dogs rationally and put people first. Don’t love, please don’t hurt, you can love, and don’t be bad. Everything is reasonable and law-abiding. Being a human being should be reasonable. After all, people can think and have ideas. What we have to do is to know right from wrong, to know good from evil. The owner of a dog should not blindly cover up his mistakes, because he is brave enough to take responsibility. If his own dog is not well-bred, he can’t pretend to love a dog for it.

2019-07-22

report


answer

A drop of mercury on an aluminum sheet

Eaten in a hurry

2019-07-24

report


answer

The account has been cancelled.

It’s not that you can’t eat, it’s that you can’t abuse life, like the live bear who used to take courage is abusing.

2019-07-23

report


answer

All 6 replies

Starry night sky

First of all, it is a false proposition that dogs are friends of human beings, and dogs are friends of their owners; The law on eating dog meat doesn’t say that you can’t eat it or that you can eat it. The law can’t control it. If something goes wrong, just take responsibility for it and it won’t interfere with other people’s affairs. For the source of dog meat, there are meat dogs and thieves. Please take out the evidence of the thief and find the dog thief. Don’t worry about the meat dog, and you can’t control it. The meat of pet dogs is not delicious, which is based on the feedback from major netizens; It is also illegal to destroy other people’s property without permission. Whether it is stealing a dog or smashing a shop, please compensate according to the price of the damage. It is illegal to destroy other people’s property. Please comment on quality.

2019-07-22

report


answer

CoVa

Those who have eaten pet dogs are quite Doha.

2019-07-26

report


answer

Fish-teasing stray cats

It’s not said that you can’t eat, because dogs have been food for thousands of years, and it doesn’t need another explanation by law. Have you ever heard of any kind of food that you often eat, and it is clearly stated in which law that it is food?

2019-07-25

report


answer

All 7 replies

Floating like a wind, back to snow LSF

However, even vegans are faced with an irrational question: Can wolves be prevented from eating sheep? This is the nature of the biological chain. The law of the jungle fights each other, and this relationship is necessary. It will promote the evolution of species and control the number of species to ensure balance. Peaceful coexistence in this world is acquired, and selfish competition is the nature of all species. (Why are animals selfish? See Selfish Genes.)

2019-07-21

report


answer

La la la la jrfI

Hmm. How interesting

2019-07-28

report


answer

dkdndjf

Wolves eat sheep and sheep eat grass. Living things need to eat, and not attacking other living things means extinction.

2019-07-25

report


answer

All 8 replies

Mystery piece soup cat

Treat the non-existent equally. Everything is attributed to the needs of human beings. For pets, human beings can treat them as food, but this is equivalent to burning a harp and cooking a crane. When there is enough firewood, there is no need to use the piano as fuel. Similarly, pets can meet many needs other than human consumption. It is difficult to get feedback when communicating with people, while animals are much simpler, even if sometimes it is only one-way. If we make it clear, we can understand why animals are not treated equally. Cats and dogs are in line with the aesthetics of most people, so they are more cherished in the eyes of human beings, just like watching a piano is better than watching a piece of wood. Everything is human needs.

2019-07-22

report


answer

CoVa

This human words, really not necessarily.

2019-07-26

report


answer

Puppet show

It’s not symbiosis. Humans and dogs can survive without each other. Domestication was just hunting.

2019-07-23

report


answer

All 6 replies

The account has been cancelled.

Life is precious, love is more expensive;
If you are free, you can throw both.
Those who really love dogs will not deprive them of their freedom to keep them. Because love is a kind of giving, not possession, such as the family love that parents give to their children for free. The so-called love for dogs by people who love dogs is to satisfy their own selfish desires. This is just a hobby, not love.
Dog powder unilaterally deprives animals of their freedom and equal rights and enslaves animals as emotional sustenance, which is not a moral noble behavior, such as fighting cricket and walking myna. So, don’t flaunt the selfish hobby of dog powder as great.
Kindness can’t be double standard,
Refuse to keep pets;
Return the earth to beauty,
Return life to freedom.
If you love dogs, please return your freedom to them first!

//

@ Fully embody haha

Loving dogs is a program written in people’s genes, not morbid. You just don’t express your love for dogs like them, but if you change your past experience, you may like dogs.

2019-07-23

report


answer

La la la la jrfI

Brother, there are so many people stealing dogs now, and dogs don’t necessarily want to.

2019-07-28

report


answer

The account has been cancelled.

Who told you that people should give up their towns to dogs to set them free? The freedom of animals is in the wild.

2019-07-26

report


answer

All 5 replies

Shiying quality assurance

What about the food? In a truly civilized country, pets, food and experimental animals should all enjoy animal welfare! When pigs grow to a certain extent, they will become human food, yes; But civilized human beings will make pigs have a certain quality of life when they are alive and die without pain.

2019-07-22

report


answer

Sun jiao beast xp

You still have to eat meat if you say it in a grandiose way.

How can anyone not bleed, or do you think beheading is more merciful? Look at that fish. It’s all disemboweled and still swimming around. What should I do?

As for the abuse and torture, there is no need to waste all that time.

2019-07-26

report


answer

Shiying quality assurance

It’s not interesting for you to say these things here. I’m not afraid of anything. I just hope that most people will become civilized, not including you.

2019-07-26

report


answer

All 8 replies

Cold and frosty

In some countries, you can’t eat beef, because you think cows are cultivated land and it is unjust to eat them.

2019-07-21

report


answer

CoVa

I think it is to let animals play their greatest value.

2019-07-26

report


answer

Empty ink

Not injustice, but faith. For example, we don’t eat cats in our hometown.

2019-07-26

report


answer

All 20 replies

Haha king 12345678

Who says dogs are pets and pigs are food? Obviously it’s all pets and food! There is a special meat dog factory and a lovely pet pig! The reason why eating dog meat has always been emphasized is that many dog meat dealers steal people’s dogs as pets and sell them, or directly catch stray dogs and kill them, so this is the key! I have a dog, too, and I like dogs! Many places are inseparable from the help of dogs!

2019-07-22

report


answer

Zero clock VoV

Therefore, it is not the dog eaters who are condemned, but the people who illegally obtain dog meat and receive these dog meat.

2019-07-23

report


answer

Zero clock VoV

Stealing dogs infringes people’s property rights, using stray dogs does not meet health standards, and eating dog meat is not illegal, but dog meat must have a regular and healthy source. Also, Chinese Korean dog meat hotpot is their specialty food!

2019-07-23

report


answer

Fully embody haha

In fact, it is not necessary to say that people are irrational. The article is right. People tend to empathize with certain species more easily, but doesn’t this reflect that a person can have energy to sympathize with other different species because of his rich food and resources? Let those who have not enough to eat sympathize with cats and dogs. For a long time in the past, individuals who can have enough food can get more mating rights. Big-eyed creatures can be reminiscent of human babies. Human babies must have big eyes and have enough food to feed small animals. So this is why some people like young animals such as kittens and pandas.

2019-07-22

report


answer

Fully embody haha

People can make the right decision by jumping out of the limitations of human beings from the perspective of nature, but they can’t fall into the sense of pleasure and superiority of self-incarnation as God and nature. People are always people.

2019-07-23

report


answer

La la ah vtLbV

I think it’s hard to say. . . I understand that the author is looking at human behavior from a perspective other than human beings. This is not hypocrisy, after all, the study of modern philosophy is to put aside your own human nature and social ethics, and you will feel more condescending. But I agree with what you said. On the other hand, when people try to think from a standpoint other than their own race, isn’t it a manifestation of their purposefulness and sensibility? I can only say that this way of thinking is invented by human beings, based on sensibility and aiming at rationality, and it is indeed of practical significance. It’s just that the author doesn’t use it well . .

2019-07-22

report


answer

All three replies

Qiqi Abcd

Dogs can meet the needs of human emotions and utilization. To put it bluntly, pigs do not have these skills at all, so they eat them.

2019-07-21

report


answer

The account has been cancelled.

可以参考一下!
爱狗人士因为自己的所作所为,已经被社会大众定义贬义词。
1、极端的狗主:为了狗和他自己的方便,常常无视文明养狗的规定。这类人可以通过完善的法规和严格的执法纠正过来。
2、相关利益方:宠物从业者和骗捐者,他们自己并不一定爱狗、养狗,但他们会通过一系列的虚假宣传运作,诱使他人来购买产品、服务和骗取捐款。尤其是骗捐者,他们会主动参与一些救狗行为,以此来增加知名度,为骗捐作准备。他们还会为了一己私利去践踏法律的做出一些拦路劫车、砸狗肉馆、逼人跪狗、仗狗打人、侵犯隐私等等恶行。对于此类,政府应依法对其进行严厉的惩戒。
3、境外组织的代言人:有反华、反人类的一些伪动保组织,也包括在欧美也诟病的极端伪动保。代言人收取国外组织提供资金,在大陆进行虚假宣传和煽动,挑起国民为了狗去对立,煽动极端分子冲击政府机关和军事基地,以此来扰乱和平发展的中国社会。同样,它们也会非法的去做出拦路劫狗等恶行。但是它们的目的却不同,第二类只求财,而它们却是数典忘祖的在卖国求奴!对于此类,国人一定要擦亮眼睛,千万不要做它们的炮灰!而且一定要将它们曝露在阳光下来赶尽杀绝!否则国无宁日!

2019-07-26

report


answer

Sun jiao beast xp

It’s a little expensive, just eat it occasionally. Every day in China, there is a dog vaccine that is bitten by dogs, and it never stops. Why are there so many crazy dog lovers (people who don’t allow others to eat dog meat) who oppose abuse and stealing? Please be rational.

2019-07-26

report


answer

All 7 replies

Twilight seeking knowledge big ram

People protect lovable animals and repel unpleasant animals. Take a chestnut as an example: in the 20th century, there was a forest in America, which was full of vitality, and it had already been before that. There are a group of deer in the forest. Although they are cute, it doesn’t make them escape from the wolves. Roosevelt decided to protect these deer, so he hired many hunters with a lot of money to kill wolves. Soon, the number of wolves dropped sharply, not only wolves, but also other deer-eating animals such as cheetahs were killed at gunpoint. Deer have become favorites. Because they have no natural enemies, they breed and eat the plants in the forest at will. Later, bad luck also fell on the deer. Words are limited!

2019-07-23

report


answer

Twilight seeking knowledge big ram

Up posture, thank you.

2019-07-25

report


answer

Tiger shark 2012

This is a matter of Yellowstone National Park in the United States. Finally, it took a lot of money to introduce gray wolves to rebuild the wolves to stop the deer from flooding.

2019-07-24

report


answer

All three replies

Bierlaici

I’m different. I don’t fucking like pork but dog meat. I heard there was swine fever this year. Now I eat braised dog meat once a week. I feel that dog meat is the most fragrant among meat.

2019-07-22

report


answer

Orchid leaf Gudan 0Gb

? Smells good? ? warn

2019-07-25

report


answer

Xiao Yu ying xian

Can he not hold a grudge if you eat his father?

2019-07-24

report


answer

All 6 replies

Gluten meatball

Maybe I’m too philanthropic. I like to keep all animals except people, including plants, as long as it’s predestined friends. As for those who eat it or not, it depends on their feelings. I kept the baby chicken for a week and died. I didn’t eat chicken for three years. The baby pig was raised in my grandmother’s house for a few days when I was a child, so I didn’t eat pork before I was ten years old, and I hardly ate fish before I raised it. Only the dog has the deepest feelings and almost accompanied my whole life, so I never ate dog meat all my life.

2019-07-23

report


answer

Sun jiao beast xp

Girl, you are so cute, very hahaha.

2019-07-26

report


answer

Gluten meatball

I can’t say it’s fraternity, but I value my feelings.

2019-07-23

report


answer

All three replies

We are not cute.

What does eating have to do with being cute? How much of the same sample can only catch up with the meat of one? How much does it cost?

2019-07-22

report


answer

Sun jiao beast xp

So there are still too many crazy dog lovers, which makes the price of dog meat rise again.

2019-07-26

report


answer

The account has been cancelled.

Therefore, it is still necessary to meet different consumer needs.

2019-07-24

report


answer

All 6 replies

Reshiram X.

Dogs can help people, and pork is delicious. This is the reason.

2019-07-22

report


answer

Bigteacher3Y

Sorry, I think dog meat tastes better. Can I eat dog without being sprayed?

2019-07-28

report


answer

CoVa

Police pig, it seems that you are only trained to try one aspect, right? Police dogs are different, right?

2019-07-26

report


answer

全部11条回复

The account has been cancelled.

可以参考一下!
爱狗人士因为自己的所作所为,已经被社会大众定义贬义词。
1、极端的狗主:为了狗和他自己的方便,常常无视文明养狗的规定。这类人可以通过完善的法规和严格的执法纠正过来。
2、相关利益方:宠物从业者和骗捐者,他们自己并不一定爱狗、养狗,但他们会通过一系列的虚假宣传运作,诱使他人来购买产品、服务和骗取捐款。尤其是骗捐者,他们会主动参与一些救狗行为,以此来增加知名度,为骗捐作准备。他们还会为了一己私利去践踏法律的做出一些拦路劫车、砸狗肉馆、逼人跪狗、仗狗打人、侵犯隐私等等恶行。对于此类,政府应依法对其进行严厉的惩戒。
3、境外组织的代言人:有反华、反人类的一些伪动保组织,也包括在欧美也诟病的极端伪动保。代言人收取国外组织提供资金,在大陆进行虚假宣传和煽动,挑起国民为了狗去对立,煽动极端分子冲击政府机关和军事基地,以此来扰乱和平发展的中国社会。同样,它们也会非法的去做出拦路劫狗等恶行。但是它们的目的却不同,第二类只求财,而它们却是数典忘祖的在卖国求奴!对于此类,国人一定要擦亮眼睛,千万不要做它们的炮灰!而且一定要将它们曝露在阳光下来赶尽杀绝!否则国无宁日!

//

@ 京京京京京京京 xp

It’s a little expensive, just eat it occasionally. Every day in China, there is a dog vaccine that is bitten by dogs, and it never stops. Why are there so many crazy dog lovers (people who don’t allow others to eat dog meat) who oppose abuse and stealing? Please be rational.

2019-07-26

report


answer

Raphael Jr.

2019-07-27

report


answer

The account has been cancelled.

You came in to do your duty?

2019-07-27

report


answer

Guang C00628

Those who gave their love to dogs. . . I left the hurt and sadness to the people around me. . . And boast that you are a caring person. Good-hearted people. . To: dog lovers

2019-07-21

report


answer

I don’t know what to call it.

Not everyone is like this, okay?

2019-07-26

report


answer

darkerking66

It should be pseudo-lovers. These people don’t really love dogs just for hype.

2019-07-21

report


answer

All 4 replies

See more comments

关于作者

admin administrator