I know contrarianism hot takes are a big part of this site, but a few rebuttals to this sentiment:
1) Farming at least serves a purpose (food for humans).
2) The vast majority of people who eat meat do not support the farming and slaughter of dogs. They're tremendously emotionally intelligent, social creatures.
3) Sacrificing an animal for science may be morally justifiable if it saves human lives, but this was not one of those situations. A quote from one of the scientists assigned to Laika’s program:
> “The more time passes, the more I’m sorry about it. We shouldn’t have done it. We did not learn enough from the mission to justify the death of the dog.”
> 2) The vast majority of people who eat meat do not support the farming and slaughter of dogs. They're tremendously emotionally intelligent, social creatures.
I didn't say that dogs are both emotional and intelligent, I said they're emotionally intelligent, meaning they can understand the emotions of humans. Pigs and octopuses may be more objectively intelligent than dogs by most measures (problem solving, memory, etc.). But much worse at empathizing with us, so in return, we empathize less with them.
Therefore? "empathizing with us" == "emotionally intelligent"
If dogs rather than pigs and octopuses gain human empathy through the appearance of understanding the emotions of humans, is intelligence in this sense equivalent to manipulative capability?
1) Farming at least serves a purpose (food for humans).
2) The vast majority of people who eat meat do not support the farming and slaughter of dogs. They're tremendously emotionally intelligent, social creatures.
3) Sacrificing an animal for science may be morally justifiable if it saves human lives, but this was not one of those situations. A quote from one of the scientists assigned to Laika’s program:
> “The more time passes, the more I’m sorry about it. We shouldn’t have done it. We did not learn enough from the mission to justify the death of the dog.”