|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Have you eaten dog soup? (boshintang) |
| Yes, tried it once |
|
28% |
[ 23 ] |
| Yes, I have it sometimes |
|
21% |
[ 17 ] |
| Not Yet |
|
12% |
[ 10 ] |
| Not a chance |
|
37% |
[ 30 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 80 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Homer
Guest
|
 Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 6:23 am Post subject: |
 |
|
barking,
I did not put in doubt the existance of the pic mate.....I just said I found it to be silly and perhaps inflammatory...to be fair he should have shown similar pics of pigs being put on hoooks to be bled, cows being tube fed...its the same....but unfortunately for them they have no symptahy capital because they are not recognized in western society as "cute" or "friendly"....
Shawner,
Dude, visit a slaughter house back home or even a cattle farm-ranch where cattle is raised and slaughtered. This is simply a case of selective outrage based on cultural bias... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Homer wrote: |
| This is simply a case of selective outrage based on cultural bias... |
Ain't nothing wrong with cultural bias. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Homer
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 8:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sure there is Beaver when it leads to judging others based on it and demeaning them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Homer wrote: |
| Sure there is Beaver when it leads to judging others based on it and demeaning them. |
Naw, still nothing wrong it based on the argument style put forth about it being okay to eat dogs (it's that circular logic thing again) because we have no right to judge, but having no right to judge is based on judging. . .
But, on a more serious level. . .
Why is it that every time I say eating dog is fucked people say that I lack cultural sensitivity and I should try to understand Korean culture better? I understand Korean culture well enough to know that historically dogs were only eaten when there was no other food and so it isn't traditional food, it's traditional last resort food.
As well, going with the culture thing, a good many Koreans themselves see eating dog as barbaric and think it should be abolished. Yet, if I hold the same view I am some sort of cultural imperialist.
Coffee time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wormholes101
Joined: 11 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hyalucent wrote: |
| In my opinion, dogs are different from cows, chickens, and fish. The reason being that far in advance of being companion animals, they work for us. My dog was a Labrador Retriever and was my partner in hunting. Because my dog worked with me in acquiring food, I could never place her in a position below me on the food chain. I treat my partners as equals, regardless of species. I feel that dogs have earned a certain loyalty above most other animals. |
| hyalucent wrote: |
| wormholes wrote: |
... oxen, donkey, cows, canaries, elephants, chickens, cats, camels, pigeons and plenty of other animals 'work' for humans in some fashion or form... do you agree that they should also not be eaten?
|
In most of the cases above, the animals you mentioned aren't eaten. Even in the case of bovines, breeds are bred for different purposes and it's only beef cattle, specifically raised to be food, that are regularily slaughtered for consumption prematurely. Oxen and dairy cattle are generally allowed to live to old age since they provide other services.
|
You dodge the issue here by saying that oxen are allowed to live to an old age. The point is if I developed a taste for baby oxen, would it some how be wrong to eat them
| hyalucent wrote: |
| dogbert wrote: |
Wouldn't you think that, throughout history, cows have been just as helpful to men as dogs have been? Not just as a source of food, I mean.
|
Oxen are certainly useful, but they lack the companionship that a dog has given over as much as a hundred thousand years (possibly) |
Here, you admit that oxen are useful but deny them immunity because of their lack of companionship with humans.
But...
| hyalucent wrote: |
| The original case I made for dogs was more than just working... but specifically work involved in the acquisition of food (hunting dogs). It's because of that reason that I tend to link dogs with a special place on the food chain. |
Oxen is to hunting dog as beef cow is to the supposed chow chow dog. Oxen certainly help humans to aquire food by plowing fields to ready for planting. Indeed even today, bovines are still used like this in many countries.
| hyalucent wrote: |
| wormholes101 wrote: |
You seem to attribute immunity to all dogs because some are companions.
|
Yes I do. A dog has a much greater intellectual capacity than a cow, even those bred for food. They also have greater tendencies to bond with humans than cows do. |
Intellectual capacity is a very sticky issue. If you wish to explore that route, I'm game.  But for now lets go back to bonding/companionship. Let's remove that bonding factor for a moment and see what is left?
Some dogs help humans.
If a dog helps a human, it is our partner.
All variations within the species become our partners.
We shouldn't eat our partners.
Thus all dogs should not be eaten.
Are oxen and cows a variation within the bovine species?
If that's true, shouldn't all bovines receive immunity?
What reasons do you have left for defending the position that we shouldn't eat all dogs? Companionship? but...
| hyalucent wrote: |
| In my opinion, dogs are different from cows, chickens, and fish. The reason being that far in advance of being companion animals, they work for us. My dog was a Labrador Retriever and was my partner in hunting. Because my dog worked with me in acquiring food, I could never place her in a position below me on the food chain. I treat my partners as equals, regardless of species. I feel that dogs have earned a certain loyalty above most other animals. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 5:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Make no mistake -- old dairy cows become ground beef.
And pigs can hunt truffles, be trained as companion animals, etc. It's interesting to see where each of us draws our own personal "line of consumption" and why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kwangjuchicken
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Location: I was abducted by aliens on my way to Korea and forced to be an EFL teacher on this crazy planet.
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shawner88 wrote: |
| And dogs are not chickens. They are dogs. |
And your point? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hyalucent
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: British North America
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 05, 2004 10:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Give me some time to respond to this one. I just wrote a rather lengthy reply on the mythic qualities of hunting and food gathering...
But I realized I am too tired right now to make sense and deleted it.
They're all good arguments, wormholes101. My distinction still stands however. The dog is an elevated being in my book for many reasons. Even the lowly chow hound deserves better in light of its noble ancestry. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Homer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Noble ancestry?... 
Its a pooch for Pete's sake!
Its quite allright to view dogs the way you do hyalycent. But, its also allright for others to see them as soup. The problem arises when you apply one set of "attributes" to an animal and call it noble and deny this similar distinction to other animals that are slaughtered for meat and have some of the very same attributes.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Homer wrote: |
| The problem arises when you apply one set of "attributes" to an animal and call it noble and deny this similar distinction to other animals that are slaughtered for meat and have some of the very same attributes.... |
Negative. That's not a problem. A hierarchy of animals is fine.
I'll never stop my mosquito killing rampage and I'll never eat tigers' nuts.
I think killing mosquitos is fine and not killing tigers is even better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Homer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thats fine and dandy Beaver but not the same thing at all.
I did not mention hierarchy my man....read again.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Homer wrote: |
Thats fine and dandy Beaver but not the same thing at all.
I did not mention hierarchy my man....read again. |
Negative. Calling one animal noble and not doing so to another is a hierarcy.
Unless you were talking about anthropomorphism. . . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Homer
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Oh well...leave it to da Beaver..this is going nowhere.
You just choose to see what you see my man and lets leave it at that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Homer wrote: |
Oh well...leave it to da Beaver..this is going nowhere.
You just choose to see what you see my man and lets leave it at that. |
Okay. I usually leave this topic alone in everyday life anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hyalucent
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: British North America
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Homer wrote: |
Its quite allright to view dogs the way you do hyalycent. But, its also allright for others to see them as soup. The problem arises when you apply one set of "attributes" to an animal and call it noble and deny this similar distinction to other animals that are slaughtered for meat and have some of the very same attributes.... |
I'm going to begin here and break into a reply to wormholes101. I don't want to make this too quote heavy, but just simplify, and Homer's response actually gives me a good starting point.
First, you're not actually saying it in the first line but incase it's implied, I haven't imposed my view on anyone else yet. This is just personal testimony to my beliefs on the matter, as idealistic as they might be.
You use the word "some" but you are arguing on the assumption of "all". Yes, oxen, horse, even dung beetles share some of the qualities that I value in a lifeform... but not to the point that the dog has throughout history. I know that not all dogs today have been bred for the purpose of protection, hunting, guides, companionship, etc. but I am not the kind of person that always views beings individually. There are some beliefs that I maintain that are species wide, and forged over the grander scale of history, as opposed to single generations. That's the kind of guy I am.
Just as I afford all other human beings the right to life, even when I may not like them or benefit from them (including handicapped kids and taxi drivers), I am willing to extend this to dogs on the basis that many dogs have contributed to society more than some people at times.
From a personal context, my experience as a dog owner certainly led me to value my dog ahead of many people. Left on a desert island with a cat, dog, and another human: I would prefer to eat the cat first, the human second, and starve to death with the dog at my side.
Food supplies do tend to work on a graduated scale. I never said that oxen or dairy cattle are never eaten, but that they tend to be allowed to fulfill their usefulness. Yes, they have some admirable qualities-- and their treatment is reflected by that, even though they may be devoured in the end.
I am creating a hierarchy. We all do for one reason or another, although we tend to make the cutoff mark at our own species. I personally feel that the barrier should be dropped a rung lower and the dog should be afforded certain protections for services rendered to humanity (not just my own personal hunting trips).
It's difficult to logically provide reasons for feeling loyalty to something that does not benefit us directly. But one of the reasons I place dogs above many self-interested humans is the fact that many dogs are still able to share loyalty, even when not motivated by benefits to themselves.
That's also why I use the word "noble". |
|
| 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
