Killing cats and cooking cats is one way to kill cats. There are many. They all make me sick to the stomach and they are all wrong morally, ethically and fundamentally.
Mark Twain:
"Of all the animals, man is the only one that is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it."
"I am not interested to know whether vivisection produces results that are profitable to the human race or doesn't...The pain which it inflicts upon unconsenting animals is the basis of my enmity toward it, and it is to me sufficient justification of the enmity without looking further."
Mahatma Gandhi:
“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated”
Some people defend the killing and cooking of cats as no different from the kill
ing and cooking of farm animals. This is poor thinking. Of course the Chinese and Koreans don't even attempt to justify why they partially kill cats (for flavor) and cook them. They just brick wall us.The difference between killing farm animals for food and cats for food is this. Farm animals are raised for food. We have a social contract with cats that we care for them and they are our companions in return. It is symbiotic; to mutual benefit. The contract does not extend to killing them in a brutal manner and eating them. Further, when farm animals are killed it is done in a controlled manner designed to inflict minimal pain.
When the Chinese kill cats for cooking they do so in a truly barbaric manner and in a totally uncontrolled way without any thought for the cat. They also do it with the help of their children thereby brutalising their chidren. Shame on those who do this. {note: not all Chinese or Koreans behave like this}. You disgust me and many many others.
Photos: I always provide full credit and copyright notices and always make sure that I have permission before publishing pictures. Not this time. I found these on the 'net. I am justified in using them. If the photographer thinks otherwise tell me - I'd welcome the comment.....
From Killing Cats Cooking Cats to Home Page
really, your commends are just 100% subjective, as for your comment about "we have a contract with cats" Well, Indians have a contract with Cows! Really, what is the difference? Other, than we consider cats pets and they consider cows food there is none! It's only a contract because we -AS a culture consider it one. And they consider cats food. I had a dog and loved it and would never do this to him but that is just my subjective interpretation, as is yours.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment but I disagree. The cats that are being eaten are companion animals. That is the way it is meant to be. The implied contract is universal and this is not a subjective assessment. We know it is wrong. I am disappointed in your comment because you are sitting on the fence and condoning obvious and gross animal cruelty. Even on the single and simple level of animal cruelty this is wrong. The way these people kill the cats would be considered a crime in the UK and USA and on conviction in the UK the sentence would be up to 6 months in jail and a fine of £20,000! You can't condone that but you have.
ReplyDeleteDeciding whether an act is cruel can never be subjective. It is always obvious and totally objective. If people try and make it subjective it is just weasel word excuses and justification.
Is it subjective. Like I said. If you killed a cow (which Indians consider sacred animals and companions) in India you would go to jail, or possibly even be killed. Here, steak is considered the all-american food. You would also go to jail or be executed in a muslim country for having pre-marital sex or committing adultery, while in the states that's perfectly fine.
ReplyDeleteIt isn't objective at all. There's nothing you can measure other than maybe the intensity of your emotion, but that means nothing, something objective is something can measured, and people have all different reactions to things. It only means you have a personal opinion, as do people in India about cows.
It isn't universal at all- all it is your opinion and emotional response, not something like weight that can be measured with a scale. You can't claim that cats should be companions, but Indians can't have cows as companions, it's ok to kill one and not other, that's hypocritical.
Thanks once again for getting back. I take your point but I think it supports mine. Where an animal is a companion animal or more than simply breed to be eaten (i.e. livestock) as is the case for the cow in India and the cat in the west, one could say objectively that it is wrong to kill it brutally and eat it. That can be an objective assessment. It is rational. The cat is a companion animal in the east albeit a large number seem to be feral.
ReplyDeleteAlso as I said cruelty at anytime to any living creature is wrong and that is black and white objectivity. It has to be as it is enshrined in law. There is nothing emotional about the law. These cats are killed cruelly. If there is no law in the country concerned to protect them it is a failing of the country's legislators. Animal cruelty is universal as pain is the same where ever it takes place.
You apparently don't understand what objective means. Objective is something that can be measured. You can measure the weight of a rock, the length of a piece of wood, or the height of a person, those things wouldn't changed based on how you measured them, but not something like love, fear or hate. They can be measured by brainwaves, but they are different from person to person who have different reactions. These are really subjective. But a rock weighs the same whether it is measured at the equator, or either pole, (ok, a little bit more or less than either, but that depends on gravity, which is also objective) which morals differ more by geography than anything else.
ReplyDeleteLet me ask you something? Have you ever eaten a steak or a hamburger? How far do you want to take it? I'm sure there are some people who keep chickens, iguanas, turkeys, and especially rabbits as pets. Does that mean that we shouldn't eat any of them? Pigs in particular are pretty intelligent, even perhaps more so than cats or dogs. It's all a matter of social convention, it's relative not absolute, it's just what people consider pets, we can't say people are wrong either way, we can only say that's OUR way of thinking. They can all feel pain yes, so can a lobster that gets boiled in a pot of water, why aren't you protesting that too?
You seem to be mixing the two points here. You said you care that the cats are killed, but you also make the point that they are killed with cruelty. I don't see why you would think it matters that they are killed with cruelty, if you don't want them killed period. Either is wrong to you, why are you bringing that up now? Since you don't think they should be killed at all, with or without cruelty, why does it matter how they are killed? Because certainly it would still be unacceptable to you if they were killed humanely.
My response to the last comment. Thanks for it by the way.
ReplyDeleteYour definition of "objective" is very narrow and scientific. The more usual definition and the one I had in mind in this instance is where a person makes a decision unaffected by emotion of personal bias.
On that basis killing and eating a cat companion is objectively wrong because the cat is a companion and we do not eat our companions. That thought process cuts across boundaries and is certainly not subjective.
And that would apply to any animal that is a pet. I talk of cats because this site is about them. If someone keeps a rabbit as a pet we shouldn't eat it but if a rabbit is kept as livestock and breed for eating it is acceptable to eat it. All domestic cats are only cat companions and so it is wrong to eat them (for all of them). And feral cats should be or were domestic cats so the same applies to them.
The fact that a companion cat is killed to eat is wrong as mentioned. To then kill the cat cruelly simply adds to the wrong. It compounds the problem and is therefore worth mentioning. It also informs us as to the mentality and general behaviour of the people involved in this barbaric and backward practice.
I won't discuss this anymore if that is OK and I think we should leave it to visitors to adjudicate who is correct!
Ok, then, this will be my last comment.
ReplyDeleteWhat you don't seem to get is they are only companions, because we CONSIDER them so, just like indians do with cows? Ok? To an indian it's just as wrong to kill a cow as it is to an american (who don't eat cats) to kill a cat, you can't say either are wrong only that that is what they particular group believes and that is your point of view.
"Your definition of "objective" is very narrow and scientific. The more usual definition and the one I had in mind in this instance is where a person makes a decision unaffected by emotion of personal bias."
And, why couldn't you say the exact same thing about an asian killing a cat for food, unaffected by what an american or indian thinks, even that definition is variable. I'm talking about a definition that doesn't vary based on the person, which can't give in this case.
"On that basis killing and eating a cat companion is objectively wrong because the cat is a companion and we do not eat our companions. That thought process cuts across boundaries and is certainly not subjective."
No, it is very ethnocentric, because not everyone believes it. Here, a cat is a companion, in Asia it isn't. It doesn't cross even a country's boundry, let alone any other.
"And that would apply to any animal that is a pet."
Are you a PETA member that's never eaten meat before?!
I talk of cats because this site is about them. If someone keeps a rabbit as a pet we shouldn't eat it but if a rabbit is kept as livestock and breed for eating it is acceptable to eat it.
Yet, in the same country, rabbits are both kept as pets and livestock, so the duality makes it wrong you say because we are no supposed to eat our companions? Yet, you say it WOULD be ok to eat rabbits, even though some people consider them livestock and pets in the same country, same as cats.
And, I think you just made my point for me. We keep cows are livestock, indians keep them as pets. Likewise, we keep cats are pets, asians eat cats. Yes, though I agree if they take the cats from an owner off the street and kill them that is wrong, but I don't think that's what you mean.
"All domestic cats are only cat companions and so it is wrong to eat them (for all of them). And feral cats should be or were domestic cats so the same applies to them."
And what about cats that are raised to be livestock? And, besides, if the cats are going to die anyway (shelters routinely (sp) euthanize cats because there are not enough homes for them) as long as it is done humanely, what is the difference?
"I won't discuss this anymore if that is OK and I think we should leave it to visitors to adjudicate who is correct!"
I'm not sure if we'll get anything, because mine is the only comment you received here, but if do we, it'll probably be pure bias. Which is definitely not objective.
I think anonymous is right...My opinion: your discussion were more interesting than the article itself.
ReplyDeleteI came across this blog by accident and would like to add another perspective. I've heard an argument that animal behavior and brain function/intelligence are becoming a norm to determine what is ok and not ok for consumption. Chickens and cows for example do not have the intelligence as a cat or dog and do not feel emotional attachments the way cats and dogs do. One reason why they are such great companions. The physical pain of course all too real on any count. This is the same reasoning behind saving the whales and dolphins. They are intelligent creatures other than lets say a salmon or tuna which we don't have any problems with catching, harvesting, and using as a food source. Basically some animals are intelligent and would have the same experience as you and I if slaughtered and eaten.
ReplyDelete