this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2023
297 points (97.1% liked)

World News

39004 readers
2832 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] whenigrowup356@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you banned driving cars, there just wouldn't be any cars around. That analogy has little to do with dogs. What is it about a ban that makes no sense to you?

[–] Natha@discuss.online 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You can replace cars with anything else and it still makes no sense. It's no one else but the thieves who should take the consequences.

[–] whenigrowup356@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago

We ban things we want less of. More eating dogs means a bigger market for all dog meat, which means a bigger market for theft. I want less of that.

People don't steal things that no one wants to buy.

I'm talking about the side effects of fostering a culture where eating a non-livestock animal is ok. My argument is that this kind of culture is pointlessly cruel to an animal that we've explicitly bred to be a companion.

One element of discouraging a culture is government action, a ban (coercion). I argue this is a necessary step in ending a cruel practice.

The other is cultural compliance (people behaving in a certain way regardless of the presence of law enforcement officials). I argue this is a necessary step as well, by way of education and improving access to alternatives.