|
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 |
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 2:55 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Phaedrus wrote:
| Quote: |
It's quite difficult to go around trying to determine which animals are okay to kill for food and which aren't. Drawing the line at killing humans is the only sensible division.
|
I disagree. I think it makes a lot more sense to draw the line between animals and plants, since only animals can feel pain. Some people have mentioned the existence of carnivorous animals as an excuse for humans to eat meat, but I find it unconvincing because we can choose to be carnivores or not. Why not make the less violent choice? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
| we can choose to be carnivores or not. Why not make the less violent choice? |
Because vegetables suck ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
Phaedrus wrote:
| Quote: |
It's quite difficult to go around trying to determine which animals are okay to kill for food and which aren't. Drawing the line at killing humans is the only sensible division.
|
I disagree. I think it makes a lot more sense to draw the line between animals and plants, since only animals can feel pain. Some people have mentioned the existence of carnivorous animals as an excuse for humans to eat meat, but I find it unconvincing because we can choose to be carnivores or not. Why not make the less violent choice? |
The again, why not advocate what many such extremists advocate, which is to take the choice away from everyone by means of legislation?
People want to make a personal choice about vegetarianism, that's cool and wonderful, and if they want to convince everyone by calm rational discourse to feel the same way, that is also wonderful and very cool.
But that is not what they want. They want to impose thier own choice on others, ultimately, and the present case is the perfect example - unsatisfied with just trying to persuade people to be kind to animals, the goal is to make it a criminal offense not to do so.
And the level of discourse, as red dog has shown us, is seldom calm and rational, but frequently quite hostile.
Anyway, as has already been shown, the ability to feel pain is not the issue with the people working on this issue - if so, they'd advocate letting the poochies be classified as livestock animals because legislation already exists that has the effect of ensuring humane treatment, and making sure that inspections of facilities occur. Once again, a link I've given before and quote I've shown before ... (sigh)
The strange thing is that when it has been proposed that dogs be brought within the mainstream meat processing regulations, with the effect of ensuring a quick and painless death, animal rights activists have opposed the move. Presumably because they would prefer the eating of dog to be outlawed, which isn't going to happen if it is treated, quite sensibly, like any other meat
The quote above, again, links to this article in Slate.
I'm unconvinced that red dog really cares about the pain of animals or any of yahweh's creatures.
And, naw, beav, some vegetables rock out, don't judge them all by that traumatic brussels sprout experience you had when you were 12.
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 3:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
And, naw, beav, some vegetables rock out, don't judge them all by that traumatic brussels sprout experience you had when you were 12.
|
Negative. Some vegetables are tolerable but none rock. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the_beaver wrote: |
| The Bobster wrote: |
And, naw, beav, some vegetables rock out, don't judge them all by that traumatic brussels sprout experience you had when you were 12.
|
Negative. Some vegetables are tolerable but none rock. |
Fortunately, this is the modern world and just about any major dispute among civilized people can be settled by means of a search engine. I fed in the key terms <vegetables> <rock> <out> and our good friend Mr Google found approximately 820,000 places on the worldwide web where veggies do exactly what I said they do ... beaver, you owe me a beer for this, you realize that, don't you?
Right at the top was a hefty tome bearing the title that backs up my claim in exactly the pair of words I used :
Vegetables Rock !
Well, now that we've established the main objective, there's bound to be tussles among the landed gentry regarding exactly WHICH vegetable rocks the most. Before I came to Korea, I'd have voted as well as campaigned vociferously for either broccoli or (first choice) asparagus. But now that I've been in Korea a while, the choice is a simple one, and hard to dispute even among those of who enjoy a good dispute even more than a nice plate of broccoli and asparagus.
I am speaking, of course, of that coolest dude on and in your favorite ball of dirt and mine, none other that masterblaster of several continents, that genius of artistic meanness, the lean machine and yes, I'm talking' about the bean ... friends you know damn well I can only be speaking of that incredible source of both fiber and protein, the hip cat that makes his home not only in dubu but tchiggae as well, and yes, obviously I suppose in dubu tchiggae as well, sure why not ... well, who else could I be talking about except, your friend and mine, it is none other than, the municifent, the wise, the powerful, the nutricious and almost delicious
legume
Not many people are aware of it, but Jimmy Page originally wrote those guitar licks with the firm intention that the final verse ought to go, "and she's bah-ah-ing a stairway to ... tofu."
(The story goes that Robert Plant sat him down and said, "Dude, I'm just not gonna sing that - you musta been high." And then Jimmy just comes back with, "Sure, man, I'm always high, and so are you." And the Robert Plant, he comes back with, "Um, whoa, what were we talking about just now?" And the rest is ... )
One more little THANG that deserves mention is that due their very practical shape, just about every memeber of the legume family not only rocks, but rolls as well.
Now, of course, beav, I know you were expecting me to say that, here in Korea the rockinest veggie would have to be the mighty gochu, but talking about gochu in the presence of a beaver is something even The Bobster will not stoop to, no, not on a family-oriented site like this one, where teachers might be calling up the screen with kids maybe wandering in, okay? Gots to keep dis place work safe, you know.
Man, you guys ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bobster, an impressive undertaking but completely erroneous. Byron had it right:
| Lord Byron wrote: |
LXVII
But man is a carnivorous production,
And must have meals, at least one meal a day;
He cannot live, like woodcocks, upon suction,
But, like the shark and tiger, must have prey;
Although his anatomical construction
Bears vegetables in a grumbling way,
Your labouring people think, beyond all question,
Beef, veal and mutton better for digestion.
from Don Juan |
Last edited by the_beaver on Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:31 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Bobster wrote:
| Quote: |
| ... legislation already exists that has the effect of ensuring humane treatment, and making sure that inspections of facilities occur. |
Where is your evidence for this? I've seen no evidence that animals classified as livestock are treated humanely anywhere, and in Korea there are very severe problems based on what I've heard from Voice for Animals.
Also, I don't understand what kind of legislation it is that you're so opposed to -- any laws limiting what humans can do to animals? Or just the immediate and total abolition of all animal exploitation industries? We're not going to see the latter in our lifetimes and I don't think even the most optimistic animal advocates expect it. But progress is being made in a few European countries that have outlawed fur farming, and it looks like California may be ready to abolish foie gras production. I hope Korea will make progress too, but I don't know what form it will take and I'm not asking to be the one to decide.
As I said before, these matters need to be considered carefully after consultation between the government and Korean animal advocates. I think KAPS has explained very clearly its reasons for wanting the dog meat trade abolished. Other groups may not be asking for that particular kind of legislation, but they do want changes that will make animals' lives a little less horrific. Why is this a bad thing?
And I'm only "hostile" when people tell lies about me, and when total strangers claim to have my motives figured out when they know nothing about me. However, to clarify my position, I do care about animals' pain. I also think humans have no right to take animals' lives without a very good reason, just as we can't go around killing each other for no good reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
phaedrus
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Location: I'm comin' to get ya.
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I was thinking this morning about carnivores. It seems odd for an omnivorous animal to eat a carnivorous one.
On another note I like dogs. I would kill a cow so that I could eat it, even if I had other food available. I would not kill and eat a dog unless I was starving. They seem to have a connection to people. I wonder if Asia has similar sayings to "Man's best friend." I wonder if my thinking on this has been culturally determined.
I was also thinking that I don't have to accept what other cultures do. If some Koreans like to eat dog, and I don't, I don't have to accept their cultural views, or respect them. I'm still undecided as to whether I could impose my beliefs. It seems acceptable to impose beliefs when there is human suffering, as in the case of toppling dictators who commit crimes against humanity. I'm not sure if it could extend to animals. I think that the greatest imposition could be to ban torture and unnecessarily painful death.
| red dog wrote: |
| phaedrus wrote: |
| It's quite difficult to go around trying to determine which animals are okay to kill for food and which aren't. Drawing the line at killing humans is the only sensible division. |
I disagree. I think it makes a lot more sense to draw the line between animals and plants, since only animals can feel pain. |
Just anesthetize them before death. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the_beaver wrote: |
Bobster, an impressive undertaking but completely erroneous. Byron had it right:
| Lord Byron wrote: |
LXVII
But man is a carnivorous production,
And must have meals, at least one meal a day;
He cannot live, like woodcocks, upon suction,
But, like the shark and tiger, must have prey;
Although his anatomical construction
Bears vegetables in a grumbling way,
Your labouring people think, beyond all question,
Beef, veal and mutton better for digestion.
from Don Juan |
|
Lord Byron was very ghey. You didn't know that? Don Juan also - it's that whole overcompensating thing.
Massive kudos for citing superior sources than mine, though ... still, I see nothing in the poem that directly refers to rocking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the_beaver
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 28, 2004 6:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bobster wrote: |
| Lord Byron was very ghey. You didn't know that? Don Juan also - it's that whole overcompensating thing. |
Byron was very switch hitting. Don't really see how that's relevant here though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Bobster
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| red dog wrote: |
The Bobster wrote:
| Quote: |
| ... legislation already exists that has the effect of ensuring humane treatment, and making sure that inspections of facilities occur. |
Where is your evidence for this? I've seen no evidence that animals classified as livestock are treated humanely anywhere, and in Korea there are very severe problems based on what I've heard from Voice for Animals. |
This deserved a response, but I got busy, holidays and all ... and all this flaming is bound to distract a fellow.
No, the classification of canines as a livstock animal would not by itself create humane treatment, but it would allow the codification of acceptable practices and enable inspections of the facilities of the sort that presently occur for poultry, pork and beef production. If activists wish to see animals trreated humanely, there must an infrastucture set up for observation to take place and for sanctions to be levied.
But as mentioned above, cruelty is not the issue, despite the frequent claims. If cruelty is your issue, you need to lobby to see that all animals are killed in the quickest and most painless way possible - and no one is supporting the notion of including dogs in this category - and the effect of that is that the practices inevitably occur sub rosa and without the light being shown on them that might have the effect that activists claim to want to see.
And why? Well, because the true agenda is other than what is being promulgated, that's why - the actual desire is to take away the choices of people regartding what they want to eat. The ability to outlaw the choice of some people who to to eat dogs, cats or any other animal is easily extended to the eventual goal of outlawing any and every kind of meat consumption at all.
It is this wish to exclude the choices that other people wish to make that I most object to.
| Quote: |
| Also, I don't understand what kind of legislation it is that you're so opposed to -- any laws limiting what humans can do to animals? |
Glance at the title of this thread for just a small second. It's about Korean people and dogs. What I have said several times is that i oppose the activities of non-Koreans seeking to agitate and influence the cultural practices of countries that are not their own.
| Quote: |
| I think KAPS has explained very clearly its reasons for wanting the dog meat trade abolished. Other groups may not be asking for that particular kind of legislation, but they do want changes that will make animals' lives a little less horrific. Why is this a bad thing? |
Although red dog has told us that KAPS is a purely Korean organization, , and their site makes it clear that they could not exist without the financial and volunteer support of people outside of Korea :
many of the members are students and the elderly and the number of those who donate at least once per year is less than 500. The recent recession resulted in the decrease of financial contributions from Korean members. Matters are made worse, because a recession means more stray animals, demanding more of already stretched staff time and resources.(...) KAPS is always in need of more funds (...) You can help by making financial contribution ...
Nevertheless there is much said here that is anti-Korea to such an extent that I remain skeptical about the true authors of these pages. I've looked at their site and I don't see much that explains their reasons, as red dog says - however, I see much else that is bothersome :
Blatant attacks on the government of S Korea and chauvinistic labels ("superstitious ideas") :
We are saddened that the international community has been mislead in recent times by the Korean Government into thinking dog-meat is a part of Korean culture or just another meat option. Dog & cat meat is not a part of the food industry, but one of many fraudulent medicinal products in Korea that exploit superstitious ideas about health.
Bashing of Korea as a country and a doctrinaire demand for any other groups to fall in line with them:
We very much appreciate the visibility that other governments and large organizations give to the Korean dogs & cats. However, in a country like Korea, no lasting protections for animals will ever occur, if the local animal protection community doesn��t have the full strength and support it needs to hold the Government accountable to the law and its fundamental responsibilities. If the international community doesn��t coordinate its actions with us or listen to what we know is happening, then too many different stories and demands end up confusing the issue - making it easier for the Government to get away with avoiding its responsibilities or even making things worse.
Divisive, inciteful language as that does not sound like any Korean people I know :
More than ever, we need our voice heard and repeated in Western and Korean media, so the Government has no other way out of their embarrassing situation. They won��t be able to use their phony culture excuse to defend dog eating (...)
Unsupported accusations of dishonesty :
The Government already secretly eliminated dog stew from its 1984 Food Sanitation Law list of disgusting foods illegal to sell. Given their history of deceitful diplomacy, we are committed to stopping their latest daring act to legitimize the dog & cat meat trade.
Despite the fact that they themselves solicit and receive funds from oputside of Korea, it seems they are feuding with another group of activists, In Defense of Animals (IDA) :
IDA has consistently interfered with our campaign in Korea and chosen not to support our consistent and clear message as to how to protect all dogs and cats in Korea. We still do not support IDA's involvement in the Korean dog and cat campaign, because of all the past trouble they have caused us. (...) So we find it especially disheartening that IDA has been using many of our own photos and materials for years without giving us credit for our hard work and without our permission. They have refused to stop such practices despite our repeated pleas for several years - helping them appear more involved then they actual are with this issue.
It appears as if canines are not the only territorial animal - but if they are sincere, then I think they need to refuse to accept donations from groups and people outside of Korea because financial aid seldom exists without also a desire to influence the message being sent ... and as I see it, the message that exists on thier own site is pretty inflamatory and rife with Korea-bashing.
Last edited by The Bobster on Sun Jan 02, 2005 9:26 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
paperbag princess
Joined: 07 Mar 2004
Location: veggie hell
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i'm coming into this one late, but here's my 2cents: animals should be killed humanely, not beaten about the head with a stick. people's pets should NOT be stolen and then brutally murdered. i don't eat meat and haven't for well over a decade. that being said, i don't care whether you're eating puppies, kittens, veal or human babies; it's all meat to me, just kill it nicely and treat it well before you kill it.
everyone should read eric schossler's "fast food nation". it's an excellent read. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Barking Mad Lord Snapcase
Joined: 04 Nov 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 5:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bobster, from your last post it seems that you are supporting another backpacker's myth.
[satire]"They're not real Koreans! They love animals! They distrust authority! They defy cultural conventions! They believe in modern science!"[/satire]
I find it perfectly acceptable that Koreans can hold such beliefs and values. To suggest that they shouldn't is to wish for them to all be squeezed into the same outmoded cultural box. The only thing worse that imposing "Western" (or is it just modern?) values upon Korea is to impose the illusion of an exotic, rustic and tradition-soaked paradise - a Western illusion of the "other" that can only exist on postcards. It would be far less painful - and less disillusioning - to accept the reality that a huge variety of opinions can exist within the boundaries of modern Korea, and that such diversity should be celebrated as a sign of progress and not a loss of cultural identity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 02, 2005 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From the same page you cited on the KAPS Web site, here's their explanation of why they don't want dogs or cats classified as livestock:
| Quote: |
When international organizations focus only on abuse in the industry, they also risk supporting the efforts in Korea to legalize dogs as livestock – under the false premise that they would then be treated better. Far more than the current 2 million dogs & cats will be slaughtered, if they become livestock. They will hardly be any better protected, but consumers will be able to swallow them guilt free. We question the possibility of their ever being a humane dog meat industry (since consumers demand their torture and the Government neglects its responsibilities). In addition, we question the reasoning of anyone initiating a risky policy without committing to staying in Korea to see it properly implemented. KAPS would have to be responsible for the ramifications of any policies implemented.
|
Regarding the feuding, the role of international groups, whether KAPS is right or wrong to approach the government the way it has, whether any politician in the world has ever behaved dishonestly, etc., why don't you take such matters up with Sunnan and Kyenan Kum? I think KAPS is a good organization but I don't run it, and I'm not responsible for answering these questions. Again, we're getting caught up in side issues and losing focus.
Barking Mad Lord Snapcase wrote:
| Quote: |
| I find it perfectly acceptable that Koreans can hold such beliefs and values. To suggest that they shouldn't is to wish for them to all be squeezed into the same outmoded cultural box. The only thing worse that imposing "Western" (or is it just modern?) values upon Korea is to impose the illusion of an exotic, rustic and tradition-soaked paradise - a Western illusion of the "other" that can only exist on postcards. It would be far less painful - and less disillusioning - to accept the reality that a huge variety of opinions can exist within the boundaries of modern Korea, and that such diversity should be celebrated as a sign of progress and not a loss of cultural identity. |
Barking Mad, I made a very similar point many pages ago and was accused of slandering the Bobster by doing so. Actually, he's the one who has slandered me repeatedly in these discussions and doesn't seem to want to admit the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
red dog
Joined: 31 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 03, 2005 4:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
And another thing -- I'm a cultural imperialist, have contempt for Korea and "a bad jones for" the country, whatever the *beep* that means, because I wanted to help a witness get in touch with Korean animal advocates to get assistance in reporting a violent crime.
But now we have someone telling Korean animal advocates how to run their organization!!!!
Look at the pot calling the kettle a fucking racist! |
|
| 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
