If you eat meat, would you be willing to kill an animal to continue to be able to?

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Pyre

I agree with Bonquisha. Low quality meat is better than no meat at all.

Ophelia: there is a difference in raising animals on a farm and keeping a fish. Farm animals are not considered pets, but rather as livestock, as you should know. Livestock is raised to be used as/for food and/or labor. I would say they are rarely, if ever, treated as pets. Unless someone is keeping fish for the sole purpose of eating it, then no, it's not the same.

They had names.

[gothicusmaximus]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

They had names.

Holy shit.

[Pyre]

Like what, Delicious and Tasty?

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Bonquisha Brown

While many of the commercially available cat foods use low quality meat, it'll still keep the cat alive. However a vegan diet will kill it

That's not true.
At all.

What the fuck do you think vegan cat food advertises?

"Vegan cat food. It will fucking kill your cat; but at least it ain't killing anything else!"


Please tell me you're not that fucking stupid.


Cats need taurine. Vegan cat food has taurine. It merely doesn't come from animal sources.

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

It's not bullshit, it's that I wasn't paying attention closely enough, like you said.
I'm ok with not having paid enough attention to this.

So your argument is that "you weren't paying attention to this thread"?
Nevermind the fact that we're talking about at least three threads. I seriously doubt you accused me of apparently wanting you "to be a racist, money loving, earth-hating dicksucker" just for this thread alone.

[Pyre]

Originally Posted by Saya

And there's really not much a difference between farm animals and companion animals. If you keep one fish for your amusement for all its life in a tank, and you pay for fish that have been kept all their lives on a fish farm just for the amusement of eating it, where's the difference?

The difference is how the person feels toward the fish and how it's raised. Clearly you're not going to raise a goldfish to be eaten, as Honey pointed out. I have never heard of someone keeping trout as pets. Wall ornaments, yes, but not pets. And what matters most is how you perceive the animal in question. No one looks at said trout as a companion fish, but we do consider betas and guppies to be such. The difference between a companion animal and a farm animal is how you raise it and how you perceive it.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Pyre

The difference between a companion animal and a farm animal is how you raise it and how you perceive it.

Not always. In parts of Papua women will breastfeed their piglets and raise them alongside their children in their own homes. After a few years, a pork barbecue is had. Are those pigs being perceived as companion animals or farm animals?

In the same part of the world people will readily eat their companion dogs, after living and hunting with them for years. Some also eat their slain enemies as the rather delectable 'long pig', but I digress...

Such extreme cases are rarer in Western cultures, yet I've still known plenty of farm animals destined for the dinner table that had names and were treated as well as any dog or cat.

Now I personally won't be eating any of my pets any time soon... Just saying it isn't as simple as raising companion animals one way and food animals another. In many places they're one and the same.

[Cicero]

Oh, oh! Just remembered that episode of the Simpsons in which Homer takes home that lobster to fatten it up. Awesome example of food turned companion turned delicious, delicious food.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Yeah but Homer fell in love with that lobster when he stopped seeing it as an animal to raise to eat, and just became an animal he wanted to raise and keep.
He only ended up eating it after he thought the lobster deserved a nice hot bath.

Pyre's post needs more emphasis on the word 'perceive.'

[Pyre]

Yes, well, I was talking specifically about civilized culture. Yes, I just went there.

I am not saying no one treats them the same way, but it certainly is the exception, at least in Western cultures.

But, if you're raising an animal with the knowledge that it will be killed and eaten, you acknowledge it is only temporarily a companion animal, but ultimately it's being bred and raised to provide sustenance.

It doesn't bother me either way. I do not keep fish, and I do not like fish. I don't believe it's hypocritical to keep one as a pet while still enjoying them as a food, however. You've proven the point that it is done elsewhere with other animals.

[honeythorn]

Clearly you're not going to raise a goldfish to be eaten, as Honey pointed out. I

I didn't say that. I said you can eat carp, and goldfish are simply a colour morph of carp ( common bodied golds anyway ) You certainly CAN eat goldfish. I wouldn't have a problem raising them to eat if I had the inclination ( and space ) They're beautiful and apparantly carp does not taste as muddy as is often described, when transferred to a ( big filtered ) plain water tub for a couple of weeks before eating. People don't raise trout on a small/home scale level because trout need a hell of a lot of fast flowing water. i:e a river/stream. I can't think of many people owning such a thing apart from very rich landholders who have such a river. It's just quicker to catch them really.

I wouldn't eat the fish I keep because frankly they're too small, and there are better things to eat right now.

[Pyre]

I didn't say you CAN'T eat goldfish, but that people DON'T. That IS what you said, because you remarked that people don't like carp because of its taste. Besides, I was referring to the small in-tank goldfish, not the larger breed of carp.

And really, a person who eats fish as well as keeps them as pets isn't any different from a person who keeps birds and eats poultry. Is that hypocritical? I am sure you'll say it is to be consistent, but it's a matter of subspecies being raised for a particular purpose, which clearly changes dependent on where one lives.

[honeythorn]

Who on earth told you goldfish were small?? They can reach 14 inches!! ( which is why they should never be kept in less than 55 gallons per pair ) Easily as big as a small trout. Eating goldfish and raising common carp for food is relatively recent here. Not many people do it it's true due to the supposed muddy taste, hence the "flushing" by keeping them in a plain overfiltered holding pond for a few weeks . But it relieves the pressure from overfishing or environmental decline of some of our other native species like trout and salmon.

Eating an animal you may also keep as a companion probably is considered hypocritical by many , I never said it wasn't. But just because you eat whatever animal it is, doesn't mean you don't still consider it beautiful or interesting. I eat fish, I like fish, find them interesting and I keep some as pets.

[Pyre]

You guys must have a COMPLETELY different idea of what goldfish are over there. Typically when Americans talk about goldfish they're referring to the small, aquarium variety, such as these



They are typically about an inch or two in size.

This is the more common goldfish that is kept.



As you can probably tell, they're all very small. Like I already told you, I was not referring to pond-kept goldfish, which are rather large.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

So your argument is that "you weren't paying attention to this thread"?
Nevermind the fact that we're talking about at least three threads. I seriously doubt you accused me of apparently wanting you "to be a racist, money loving, earth-hating dicksucker" just for this thread alone.

Dude. Every time I say something you disagree with or think is wrong or something, it's not that maybe I worded something poorly, or that you don't get what I'm trying to say, it's that I'm an asshole.
Like with the fucking gas pumping thing. I never fucking said that I want to keep people down so that I can live a more comfy life. I said that if everyone was educated and had degrees, there wouldn't be anyone doing farming jobs and such. I didn't say I WANTED to keep them down. You just read that into it.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Pyre

I didn't say you CAN'T eat goldfish, but that people DON'T. That IS what you said, because you remarked that people don't like carp because of its taste. Besides, I was referring to the small in-tank goldfish, not the larger breed of carp.

And really, a person who eats fish as well as keeps them as pets isn't any different from a person who keeps birds and eats poultry. Is that hypocritical? I am sure you'll say it is to be consistent, but it's a matter of subspecies being raised for a particular purpose, which clearly changes dependent on where one lives.

I don't think it's hypocritical.
I love my dog Pixie. She's fun and adorable, and I like to take her on long walks behind my house. I wouldn't eat her.

But a random dog? Why not? I don't know it or have a relationship with it.

[honeythorn]

Originally Posted by Pyre

You guys must have a COMPLETELY different idea of what goldfish are over there. Typically when Americans talk about goldfish they're referring to the small, aquarium variety, such as these



They are typically about an inch or two in size.

This is the more common goldfish that is kept.



As you can probably tell, they're all very small. Like I already told you, I was not referring to pond-kept goldfish, which are rather large.

An inch or two? Wrong again. Those varieties can reach a diameter of 8-10 inches, about the size of a big orange. And I have seen those with my own eyes. If they are remaining at an inch or two after the first six months, then they have been stunted which invariably either kills them after a few short years or severely shortens the lifespan ( around 25-40 years ) Usually stunting occurs from keeping them very incorrectly in bowls and tanks under 55 gallons.

The fancy varieties would be pretty useless for eating as their bodies are so deformed that the flesh and muscle would be disporportionate and no good for cutting up at all. A normal bodied goldfish could be filleted as any other fish.

The last fish in the picture is not a common bodied variety. It's a fantail/twintail. Comets, orfes and shubunkins are the common bodied varieties which could be used for food.

[Pyre]

Dogs don't seem appetizing.
My father used to accuse our neighbors of eating their dogs because they kept so many but always brought home new dogs without increasing the number the had already.

Until this year I could never eat venison because I think deer are too elegant, and in part because of Bambi. I'd say I now love both eating and admiring it, but in all honesty I just don't like the taste. And I'll never be able to eat squirrels, partly because they're my favorite animal, and also because rodents sound less appetizing than dog.

[Pyre]

I kept goldfish for many years, and they never reached the size of a small orange. In fact, never have I seen a fish that size. You may breed them differently over there, but here they are kept at a relatively small size and used to entertain children. I believe I did see a picture of a goldfish that was about 4 inches before, but that is certainly the largest.

Either way, you and I are not arguing the same thing. We're still talking about different fish who happen to have the same nickname. Comets get large enough that they have to be kept in a large tank or a pond, whereas fantails do not. You're still telling me about eating large fish whereas I am expressing to you that the goldfish I refer to would hardly be an appetizer due to size.

There's really no point arguing about goldfish any longer, it's completely deviated from the topic and original point, and we're still going to argue small fish vs. bigger fish.

[honeythorn]

It takes around 10 -15 years for them to reach that size even in a 55 gallon or bigger. And the size I stated is correct. They aren't bred any differently. If they're kept in bowls, 10-15 gallon tanks or even 20 gallons, they won't reach the size stated as you will have stunted them, hence the small size which would indeed make them unsuitable for eating .

[Solumina]

I had a gold fish that was about 8 inches, we had her in a 50 gallon tank with a few other fish and were quite shocked with how big she got, sadly the power went out while we were on vacation and we lost just about all of those fish.

I'm always surprised by the way that people assume that you can't think of an animal being raised for food as a pet. I suppose if the notion is foreign to you then later in life you wouldn't be able to easily kill an animal that you cared for because you think of them as being different but for most of the kids I grew up with this was not the case. The cows/chicken/goats/sheep/pigs pretty much all had names and some of those buggers were more than a bit spoiled. A good example to look at is Gordon Ramsey's F Word, he gets a bunch of turkeys to raise for food and is a bit worried that the kids will get to attacked to the birds to have them for food. The kids do end up treating them as pets (and they all have names) but they still think of them as food, even telling their friends which one is going to be Christmas dinner, the two things are not mutually exclusive.

[Mir]

And I'm completely surprised that people can raise animals as pets, and then stuff their mouths with them.

[shrug] Whatever works for you.

[Solumina]

The thing is if you have never raised an animal like that, or seen someone close to you do it, then you have a different idea of what counts as a pet. A pet for you is purely for companionship and you don't see how a bond can be formed with an animal that you intend to use.

Could you understand a dairy cow being a pet? Or a chicken that is only used for her eggs?

[Mir]

So what you're saying is;

There is a difference in terms of emotional committment to something you raise as a pet purely for nutrition?

And, yes I have raised animals such as lamb, chicken, fowls etc. That is the basis for my original statement. When we got the lamb, I knew it was to be slaughtered, and yet, it did not stop me from becoming very fond of it, and feel heartbroken when it was slaughtered.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Pyre

Yes, well, I was talking specifically about civilized culture. Yes, I just went there.

I can pretty much bet you made that judgement without knowing a single other thing about those people or their culture.

Believe me as someone who's first years of life were spent amongst them, primitive jungle savages they are NOT.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Mir

So what you're saying is;

There is a difference in terms of emotional committment to something you raise as a pet purely for nutrition?

Not at all, what I'm saying is that most people who have only seen pets as something meant for pleasure or companionship don't seem to understand that there can be more to it than that. It is possible to be every bit as emotionally invested in an animal that you intend to eat as one that is purely for companionship. People accept them as a food source but think of them as an animal, instead of thinking of them purely as food.