OK, that’s what I meant when I wrtote “between pets and other animals”.
Well, not that you should, but that you could differentiate between doing this and eating your children.
Yeah, I’d say that the standard of care for a child (ANY child) should be greater than the standard of care for a dog (ANY dog).
Then I’ll make you a deal: I won’t take care of your children, and you won’t take care of my pets. Outside those parameters, it’s really irrelevant, isn’t it?
Are we talking adult dogs or puppies?
Sorry to quote myself, but the proof is in the pudding, as is shown in this thread here http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=82970&pagenumber=1
In a nutshell, the scenario proposed was this:
An omnivorous family has a minor child that declares himself to be a vegetarian. According to some of the posters in that thread, the parents should make every effort to respect their child’s wishes, and feed the child accordingly. After all, it’s an ethical decision that should be respected.
But, when an alternate scenario was presented, namely, that a vegetarian family has a minor child that declares himself an omnivore, said parents should not make ANY effort to respect their child’s wishes, because MEAT IS GROSS!
When questioned about this apparent contradiction, even sven said:
And cher3 said:
No, no smug and/or superior attitudes in that thread :rolleyes:
I realise that the OP on this thread was posted with a genuine desire to get people’s opinions and ideas on the subject, but the fact that it was posted reflects what seems to me to be a constant need by meat-eaters for validation of their dietary choices. I’m happy as a vegetarian, and i spend exactly NO time or effort lecturing people who eat meat. Except, of course, when they ask the ‘friendly’ question of why i am vegetarian, which is generally a thinly disguised attempt to make me justify my eating habits. Also, the people who ask this are often not content simply to listen to my reasons, say “oh, that’s interesting,” and leave it at that. My answer usually elicits a whole raft of “yes, but…” and “what about…” responses that demonstrate an apparent desire to convert me back to eating meat (i’ve been vege for about 9 years).
Vegetarians have a reputation in some circles for being pushy about their beliefs, constantly trying to get meat-eaters to convert. I my experience, the pressure is much more commonly exerted in the other direction.
A really interesting question that i’ve been asked on quite a few occasions is: If you had kids (something, by the way, that i have no intention of doing) would you force them to be vegetarians? Well, is it not just as valid to ask a carnivore: Would you force your kids to eat meat?
I also get quite irritated at people who say “well, you wear leather shoes, so your convictions can’t be that strong.” I think that we all need to recognise that everyone on the planet, in one way or another, has adopts a level of inconsistency or even hypocrisy that they are willing to live with, even if t sits uncomfortably with them.
For example, given that part of my reason for being vegetarian is concern at the way animals are treated, if i followed my convictions fully i would also give up dairy products, as dairy cattle and laying hens are among the worst treated of any farm animals. The fact that i haven’t yet been able to do this is a source of some discomfort, and i like to think that i’ll be able to make the leap, although giving up cheese would be one of the hardst things in the world for me - i love it so much.
Also, i wear leather shoes. This is partly because i like the way they look and feel. But it also has to do with broader political issues. For example, if i choose not to wear leather shoes, then chances are great that any shoes i do buy will have been made in a SE Asian or Central American sweatshop owned by some outrageously inhuman corporation. It’s hard to win. Furthermore, i don’t wear leather jackets because the function they serve is more easily substituted than is the function served by leather shoes. There are ‘fake’ leather shoes available, but the only ones i’ve seen are extremely expensive, and i’m not rich.
This brings me to another point - one of finances. A reason i don’t do around scrutinising the clothes and other consumer choices made by people is that so many people are constrained in their choices by financial circumstances. While it may be desirable to avoid buying sweatshop-produced shirts, the hand-made items from companies that pay their workers decent wages also cost and arm and a leg.
And finally, in a world of interlocking and vertically integrated companis, it is often hard to know who exactly is producing your goods without taking much time and effort to find out. For example, when i first moved to the US last year, i started eating a breakfast cereal made by ‘Post’. I only found out after a few months, however, that ‘Post’ is owned by ‘Kraft’, which is in turn owned by ‘Philip Morris’, and i prefer not to buy my food from a cigarette company. The problem here is that a search for an alternative in such situations often leads you to yet another corporate behemoth.
All this has strayed a little from the original topic, but i wanted to make a wider point about the constraints that determine the choices that people make.
It’s pretty hard to boycott the cattle industry. I bet most people think that all they need to do is give up meat, dairy and leather and they’ve avoided all association with the cattle industry.
It ain’t so. Read this article from the August 2001 issue of Discover and learn how many different products are made with substances derived from cattle.
IzzyR wrote:
Hey, if one of my kids were to die, it’d be a shame to have to waste all that good meat…