|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
 Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:44 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Mix1 wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
By the way, the benefits to dogs of being declared by the gvt to be "livestock" is that inspections and regulation of farms would occur, thus ensuring that at least SOME standards of humane treatment would be on the table for discussion. A few years ago, legislation was proposed that would make that happen, but animal welfare groups opposed it and lobbied against it so it didn't happen.
The reason? Um, I guess because that woiuld blur the line between "food animals" and "companion animals," and we can't have that, can we?
Problem is, the very groups who claim to want to end the sufering of these animals are the same people who have worked to see that it continues unto the present moment. Me, I think there's somethin' a little backasswards about that ...
 |
Either way, any laws or regulations in this area would hardly do squat as far as treatment and suffering of dogs are concerned. |
If what you say is true, it goes the same for any and every other type of legislation or rules, either here or elsewhere ... or, am I missing something?
... blah, blah blah ...
Oh, wait, dammit, I forgot, even though I mentioned it above - someone TRIED to classify as livestock, but the fine people at KAPS (those people, you know, who care so much about ending canine pain) opposed it and so it never happened.
Of course they would. They are hypocrites. They don't really care about the welfare of animals at all, or how could they oppose moves to regulate how animals are treated? |
You're definitely "missing something." What you're missing is any regard for the truth. Why are you such a liar? Were you born that way, or did you have to work at it?
As you're well aware, it wasn't only KAPS that opposed the changes the government proposed in 2002; it was a coalition of Korean animal protection groups that disagree on many things. They joined forces to oppose the revised law because they felt it was meaningless window dressing, and that it would do far more harm than good.
Suppose the U.S. government proposed a �peace bill� that involved tripling funds for the Iraq war, quadrupling the number of troops, and instituting a draft. In 2107, the government plans to �review the possibility� of pulling troops out of Iraq altogether. Politicians sell this as a �bill to pull the troops out of Iraq,� and anyone who opposes it is a hypocrite who supports war. Anyone who opposes the �peace bill� deserves to be libelled on the Internet, as you�ve just libelled the Korean animal activists, and shouted down with loud accusations of �not really caring about peace.�
You�re the one who doesn�t care about animals. You�ve said so many times. You�ve made it clear that all animal protection groups in existence, regardless of what they do or support, ought to liquidate their assets and give all the money to you. Why on Earth would they take your advice on what laws to support or oppose?
P.S. � You obviously haven�t read the updated links. Why don�t you at least base your lies on current information? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ok then, what legislation HAS KAPS (or other animal rights groups) proposed to ensure the safe and effective butchering of dogs for consumption?
If they are only worried about the "inhumane" butchering process, would they not propose legislation to help change it?
The truth is, I suspect they are against the act of eating dogs, and they use the reported inhumane treatment of them as a tool to turn people away from it.
If they were less hypocritical and either:
a)opposed all animal product consumption
or
b)proposed equal treatment for all animals
I'd be more supportive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
Ok then, what legislation HAS KAPS (or other animal rights groups) proposed to ensure the safe and effective butchering of dogs for consumption?
If they are only worried about the "inhumane" butchering process, would they not propose legislation to help change it?
The truth is, I suspect they are against the act of eating dogs, and they use the reported inhumane treatment of them as a tool to turn people away from it.
If they were less hypocritical and either:
a)opposed all animal product consumption
or
b)proposed equal treatment for all animals
I'd be more supportive. |
I oppose all animal product consumption, and I can only speak for myself on that point. But I think people should educate themselves about Korean animal protection groups, and what they do, before believing whatever is posted on a message board. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I hereby declare the founding of PECH
People for the Ethical Consumption of Humans
It sounds so flamingly PC, yet so working class Chinese at the same time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kentucker4
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Location: Georgia
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For all the people who agree with eating dogs, i'm sure Koreans would starve to death without their precious delicate dog meat. 
My dog is more loyal than any person I know besides a family member. To me it's just like eating a person. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 6:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kentucker4 wrote: |
For all the people who agree with eating dogs, i'm sure Koreans would starve to death without their precious delicate dog meat.
My dog is more loyal than any person I know besides a family member. To me it's just like eating a person. |
That's something you've worked out in your mind. It's an animal. Chickens are loyal if you feed them enough. Hell, every animal is loyal if you feed it. Just because your dog can pick up a news paper makes him better? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kentucker4
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Location: Georgia
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2007 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| djsmnc wrote: |
| kentucker4 wrote: |
For all the people who agree with eating dogs, i'm sure Koreans would starve to death without their precious delicate dog meat.
My dog is more loyal than any person I know besides a family member. To me it's just like eating a person. |
That's something you've worked out in your mind. It's an animal. Chickens are loyal if you feed them enough. Hell, every animal is loyal if you feed it. Just because your dog can pick up a news paper makes him better? |
First of all if I had it my way, no animals would be killed for food. Second, that is NOT something I have worked out in my mind. My dog is another family member. She communicates every bit as good minus the spoken language and is extremely emotionally intelligent more so than a lot of people even and would always be by myside come death or high water. I have had pet chickens before, so you are way off. There is no comparison. My point, though, is we already slaughter enough animals for food...why dogs and cats as well? It's already bad enough. My boss told me the other night that he wanted me to try dog. I told him hell no. That's where I draw the line to sucking up for a job. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seoulstyle
Joined: 20 Nov 2007
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 10:42 am Post subject: Dog |
|
|
| Dont dog it until you've tried it. Boshingtang tastes a lot like beef. It was tender and tasty however the aftermath wasnt so pretty. I've tried once but, I probably wont try it again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jaderedux2
Joined: 09 Jul 2007
Location: lurking just lurking
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 11:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
If you think for one minute that a wild or feral dog wouldn't eat you guess again. There are stories in news about "man's best friend" tearing the face of some kid or killing someone.
So it ain't all fluffy ducks and such. Lions eat cute little gazelles and will take down a giraffe if they can.
Yes some animals are domesticated and are pets. Native Americans domesticated and used dogs for working. Kept them as pets and if the winter dragged on and food was low they ate them.
Head out to lion country alone and see if a lion recognizes that you are a "higher" species and deserve to spared cuz you have opposable thumbs and can think and rationalize and are cute.
And let us not forget...the timeless bad taste jokes based on reality...RUGBY PLAYERS EAT THEIR DEAD. (Y'all might be to young for that reference) The Donner party survived and it wasn't on luck.
Seriously this has been done so many times. My dad was a hunter and thank god for it. That venison was good and stretched the meat budget as did the rabbits.
Circle of life baby!
Jade the carnivore, herbivore and possibly some animal's lunch someday. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2007 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kentucker4 wrote: |
| djsmnc wrote: |
| kentucker4 wrote: |
For all the people who agree with eating dogs, i'm sure Koreans would starve to death without their precious delicate dog meat.
My dog is more loyal than any person I know besides a family member. To me it's just like eating a person. |
That's something you've worked out in your mind. It's an animal. Chickens are loyal if you feed them enough. Hell, every animal is loyal if you feed it. Just because your dog can pick up a news paper makes him better? |
First of all if I had it my way, no animals would be killed for food. Second, that is NOT something I have worked out in my mind. My dog is another family member. She communicates every bit as good minus the spoken language and is extremely emotionally intelligent more so than a lot of people even and would always be by myside come death or high water. I have had pet chickens before, so you are way off. There is no comparison. My point, though, is we already slaughter enough animals for food...why dogs and cats as well? It's already bad enough. My boss told me the other night that he wanted me to try dog. I told him hell no. That's where I draw the line to sucking up for a job. |
How do you know your line is OK for which animals are smart and which aren't? Your limits are arbitrary and should not be forced on anyone. The only thing I can agree with is the "no animals being killed for food", and it would be a good thing when we can finally get to that stage. But all the "we can't eat dog" arguments on this thread are pathetic and lack any substance at all (outside the ones saying no animals should be eaten). The fact that they can't see it either is sort of scary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kentucker4
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Location: Georgia
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2007 1:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| laogaiguk wrote: |
| kentucker4 wrote: |
| djsmnc wrote: |
| kentucker4 wrote: |
For all the people who agree with eating dogs, i'm sure Koreans would starve to death without their precious delicate dog meat.
My dog is more loyal than any person I know besides a family member. To me it's just like eating a person. |
That's something you've worked out in your mind. It's an animal. Chickens are loyal if you feed them enough. Hell, every animal is loyal if you feed it. Just because your dog can pick up a news paper makes him better? |
First of all if I had it my way, no animals would be killed for food. Second, that is NOT something I have worked out in my mind. My dog is another family member. She communicates every bit as good minus the spoken language and is extremely emotionally intelligent more so than a lot of people even and would always be by myside come death or high water. I have had pet chickens before, so you are way off. There is no comparison. My point, though, is we already slaughter enough animals for food...why dogs and cats as well? It's already bad enough. My boss told me the other night that he wanted me to try dog. I told him hell no. That's where I draw the line to sucking up for a job. |
How do you know your line is OK for which animals are smart and which aren't? Your limits are arbitrary and should not be forced on anyone. The only thing I can agree with is the "no animals being killed for food", and it would be a good thing when we can finally get to that stage. But all the "we can't eat dog" arguments on this thread are pathetic and lack any substance at all (outside the ones saying no animals should be eaten). The fact that they can't see it either is sort of scary. |
I'll tell you what's sort of scary...the dog industry here. But hey, that's just my opinion. There has to be a line somewhere. Pretty soon it will be ok to eat human flesh. The dog industry is totally unessecary. I would prefer no animals were used for food but face it nobody will able to shutdown the cattle and chicken industries...but the dog industry...definitely doable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Captain Corea wrote: |
If they were less hypocritical and either:
a)opposed all animal product consumption
or
b)proposed equal treatment for all animals
I'd be more supportive. |
When you look closely at them, most animal welfare groups are in fact vegetarian and vegan extremists who are not content to being concerned about their own dietary habits, and so devote their energies to seeking legislation that wants to discouraging meat-eating of any kind, regardless of how humane the animals are treated.
And, yes, they are usually very selective about which animals they seek to protect, of course.
And among them are some who are so committed to these causes that they are willing to break laws, do damage to private property, even threaten and harass people in pursuit of their agenda.
I think vegetarianism is cool, and anyone has the right to make a personal choice about what they eat. Unfortunately, there are extremists, who will admit no boundaries and view themselves on a kind of moral crusade that transends normal limits of behavior. It's a little scary, when you start to do some research about these people, the kinds of things they will do ...
We live in a world, for instance, in which animals are considered property - when extremist members of these fringe groups set out to "liberate" animals, they are in fact commiting theft. If they view what they do as "civil disobedience" - which many do claim as a defense - then they would come forward after the fact and say so proudly. They don't. They hide, and wait in the shadows for their next chance.
Nothing respectable about them, and by alligning themselves with progressive movements they leech credibility from larger issues that truly ARE seeking progress in the world. Is there any possible connection between eating meat, for instance, and securing fair pay for equal labor, or legal equality for women and minorities, or forcing large businesses to pay out of their profits for destruction they do to the environment that will last decades?
No, and so there is a smokescreen at work, in which these activist groups pretend to care about animal welfare, but when you examine their actions they are really trying to impose worldviews and behaviors on the rest of the world which ought to be personal and private choices. And then CALLING it animal protection.
In fact, trying to build a world in which people are ONLY allowed to make the kinds of choices you yourself have made feely is not progressivism, it's crypto-fascism. And a lot of well-meaning liberals have been taken in by it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bobster, you're delusional, seriously. You live in a universe of your own making. I'd respond to your inane rant against ... well, just about everyone who disagrees with you ... if you hadn't shown time and again that you're a thoroughly dishonest person. You don't want an honest, civil conversation, do you?
I didn't think so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bramble wrote: |
Bobster, you're delusional, seriously. You live in a universe of your own making. I'd respond to your inane rant against ... well, just about everyone who disagrees with you ... if you hadn't shown time and again that you're a thoroughly dishonest person. You don't want an honest, civil conversation, do you?
I didn't think so. |
Posing a rhetorical question, then answering it - looks like I'm being called delusional by a person who seems to be having a conversation with herself. Hmm.
No one has asked you to respond, but since you have chosen to, why must it be in the form of anger, insults and personal remarks?
If you don't share my opinion, I'm wondering why it wasn't enough to just just say that you disagree rather than assert I'm suffering from mental illness and that I tell lies ... if you truly feel, for instance, that KAPS in ONLY interested in the safety and welfare and overall well-being of puppies, and that they are not trying their best to see that Koreans or anyone else cannot ever eat dog soup if they want - why not just say so?
And if I haved said something erroneous or willfully false, why not point out exactly what the true state of things is? Personally, I'd like to know why it is that people who support terrorist organizations like ALF and Earthfirst! are sane and rational (apparently) but I'm a crazy if I express my own honest opinion ...
And I don't really care very much if you respond. My earlier post was not directed at you. I think my opinions are valid, and a lot of people agree with me a lot of the time, and I don't see any reason not to express myself here if I can do it at least a little cogently and try to avoid personal remarks against other posters.
I suggest that if you don't have time to respond to the substance of my opinions, perhaps you're better off waiting until later, rather than immediately reach for your bag of insults. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bramble
Joined: 26 Jan 2007
Location: National treasures need homes
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
See? I don't have to search the archives to dig up more lies from you ... you're at it again with the ludicrous claim that you don't insult people or make personal remarks. We all know that's a big fat lie, so just stop, OK?
This is obviously a sick game for you ... you're like a child who keeps asking "why" over and over again without caring about the answer. People get sick of responding to the same tired old attacks over and over again. The answers are all there, in the archives.
You're boring. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
