|
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 |
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 6:48 pm Post subject: (Il)legality of Dogmeat |
 |
|
Can anyone reference the law or just uninformed media reports?
If the sale of dogmeat is illegal, does that mean the eating of it also is?
Great to lock a thread in which certain people get to accuse others multiple times of being criminals.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've always heard it's illegal but unenforced.
Anyway, just wondering but... isn't that bluejives' picture in your av? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
VanIslander
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Uh, the media is informed, as are the various animal protection groups.
There was a law introduced in 1988 and here's an overlapping 1991 law, in detail for you:
http://www.koreananimals.org/animalprotectionlaw.htm
Eating dog meat is illegal and immoral.
But if you disagree then show pictures of it to immigration officials and roll the dice, and don't forget to tell your friends and family and future coworkers back home about your eating of dogs if you think there's no moral issue. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
Uh, the media is informed, as are the various animal protection groups.
There was a law introduced in 1988 and here's an overlapping 1991 law, in detail for you:
http://www.koreananimals.org/animalprotectionlaw.htm
Eating dog meat is illegal and immoral.
But if you disagree then show pictures of it to immigration officials and roll the dice, and don't forget to tell your friends and family and future coworkers back home about your eating of dogs if you think there's no moral issue. |
Illegal yes, immoral no. And you people have yet to show why.
When the Norse settled on Greenland, they for some reason made fish a food not to be eaten (even though Norway and Iceland ate fish regularily). No one is quite sure why, but since Greenland is ripe with fish, this is strange. It is believed to be a way of separating themselves from others, like the French eat snails and the Japanese eat horse. Anyways, in the 1300's, the Norse all died of starvation (many reasons, but the Inuit, whom were great fishers and seal hunters survived). They refused to eat an abundant food source due to their upbringing that fish was not a normal thing to eat. Anyways, they were stupid, holding on to beliefs that made no sense. While no one is in danger of starvation for not eating dog meat, there is just no reason whatsoever that it is any different than other meat and it's Western arrogance that is forcing their illogical, emotional upbringing on Korea. Simple as that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
Uh, the media is informed, as are the various animal protection groups.
There was a law introduced in 1988 and here's an overlapping 1991 law, in detail for you:
http://www.koreananimals.org/animalprotectionlaw.htm
Eating dog meat is illegal and immoral.
But if you disagree then show pictures of it to immigration officials and roll the dice, and don't forget to tell your friends and family and future coworkers back home about your eating of dogs if you think there's no moral issue. |
Is that some sort of threat?
Just WTF do you think you are? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I would just like to say that I feel the people who are pointing out the immorality and illegality of eating dogmeat are really making a difference. I am certain everyone who previously thought it was OK no longer does. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| VanIslander wrote: |
Uh, the media is informed, as are the various animal protection groups.
There was a law introduced in 1988 and here's an overlapping 1991 law, in detail for you:
http://www.koreananimals.org/animalprotectionlaw.htm
Eating dog meat is illegal and immoral.
But if you disagree then show pictures of it to immigration officials and roll the dice, and don't forget to tell your friends and family and future coworkers back home about your eating of dogs if you think there's no moral issue. |
Is that some sort of threat?
Just WTF do you think you are? |
The guy has no idea what a debate is nor how logic works. In the last thread, he threw up tons of pictures of cute dogs as his argument. That is the level of these people, the level of, at most, a junior high school student.
Dog lovers arguments in order of appearance:
1) pictures of cute dogs
When that didn't work,
2) vicious insults (not all of them did this though)
When that didn't sway the opinion,
3) Western morality, how can anyone go against it. How can you eat it when you were raised that way?
Now, on this thread,
4) Oh, it's technically illegal
You know they are running out of ideas now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
| Uh, the media is informed, as are the various animal protection groups. |
Uh, another Engrishi teacher who is incapable of reading that language.
Korean Animal Protection Law
Adopted 7th of May 1991
ARTICLE 1. PURPOSE
The purpose of this act is to provide the adequate protection and management of animals by preventing their mistreatment and to cultivate Korean peoples' spirit to care for the animal's lives and their safety and to respect animal's lives.
ARTICLE 2. DEFINITION
The terminology used in this act shall be defined as follows:
1. "Animals" means cattle, horse, swine, dog, cat, rabbit, chicken, duck, goat, sheep, deer, fox, mink and other species as designated by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries.
2. "Caretaker" means one who breeds, keeps and protects an animal for the owner of the animal.
ARTICLE 3. PROTECTION OF ANIMALS
In keeping, caring and protecting of animals, everyone shall try, to the maximum extent possible, to preserve the animals' natural habits and to guarantee their normal lives.
ARTICLE 4. ANIMAL PROTECTION CAMPAIGN
1. The Minister of Agriculture and fisheries may encourage public or civic organizations to conduct animal protection campaigns (hereinafter called "animal protection campaign") and other related activities aimed at promoting the love of animals.
2. The Minister of Agriculture may support for the public or civic organizations to conduct animal protection campaigns and other related activities when necessary by article 4, paragraph 1.
ARTICLE 5. PROPER CARE, KEEP, RAISE AND MANAGEMENT
1. Efforts shall be made to ensure that animals are properly fed, watered and exercised and that they receive adequate rest and sleep.
2. Sick or injured animals shall receive necessary and immediate attention from the owner or caretaker of the animal.
3. Those caring for wild animals or for animals, who are being moved, shall try to take all necessary steps to allow wild animals to accommodate themselves to their new environment by the owner or caretaker of the animal.
ARTICLE 6. PROHIBITION OF MISTREATMENT OF ANIMALS
1. No one shall kill animals in a way which is cruel or which provokes disgust without proper, rational reason.
2. Animals shall not be subject to the infliction of unnecessary pain or injury without proper, rational reason.
ARTICLE 7. MANAGEMENT OF ABANDONED ANIMALS
1. When the Mayor, County Magistrate or District Chief (hereinafter Mayor, County Magistrate) finds a wandering or abandoned animal in a public place, such as street or a park, the administrative authority shall take all the necessary measures to protect or manage (hereinafter "Protective Measures") such animal in accordance with the provisions set forth in article 5.
2. The Mayor or County Magistrate shall take necessary steps, such as porting a public to inform the owner or the caretaker of the fact that his animal is subject to Protective Measures in accordance with the paragraph 1.
3. In the case of when the authority can not identify the owner or caretaker of the animal after one month of period of posting a public notice in accordance with the Paragraph 2 and in spite of the Article 253 of the CIVIL LAW, then the related City, County or Self governing Ku (hereinafter City, County) will have the right to own the animal.
4. Mayor, County Magistrate can donate the animal of the City or County in accordance with the Paragraph 3 to the animal lovers, animal welfare groups, zoo or scientific research centers.
5. The Mayor or County Magistrate may collect expense incurred for the Protective Measures form the owner of the caretaker of such animal.
6. Method of the Protective Measures in accordance with the Paragraph 1, expenditure of the Paragraph 5 and other Protective Measures will be governed by Seoul City, Direct-Controlled Cities or Provinces' their own provisions.
ARTICLE 8. METHODS OF SLAUGHTERING ANIMALS
When all animals have to be slaughtered with proper rational reason, to the maximum extent possible using methods without pain.
ARTICLE 9. SURGERY ON ANIMALS
Surgery on animals such as castration, de-horning and docking tails shall follow veterinary methods.
ARTICLE 10. EXPERIMENTS WITH ANIMALS
1. Experiments using animals for educational reasons, academic research, and for other scientific study purposes, shall, to the maximum extent possible, utilize methods that cause no pain to the subject animals.
2. A person who has conducted experiment described in the foregoing Paragraph 1. shall inspect the subject animals immediately after the conclusion of the experiments and if the animals will suffer lasting pain or be unviable, then such animals shall be put to death in a merciful way as soon as possible.
ARTICLE 11. LIMIT OF APPLICATION
Paragraph 1 and 2 of Article 6 shall not apply in any of the following cases:
1. Slaughtering of animals for human consumption in accordance with the Livestock Product Sanitation and Inspection Act.
2. Hunting in accordance with the Wildlife Protection and Hunting Act.
3. Slaughtering animal for the use of fur or leather and other industrial purposes.
4. Without slaughtering animal for collecting horns and blood for the use of medicine and other industrial purposes.
5. Measures taken to prevent the damage to property, harm to human life caused by animal.
6. Other cases determined by the Minister of Agriculture to be inappropriate for coverage by the Paragraph 1 and 2 of Article 6.
ARTICLE 12. CRIMINAL FINE
Anyone who maltreats animals in violation of Article 6 shall be subject to a fine of up to 200,000 won or detention.
ADDENDUM
This Act shall come into effect after one month as of the date of its promulgation.
RELATED LAW AND ORDINANCE
THE LOST ARTICLE ACT
ARTICLE 12. (SEMI LOST ARTICLE):
The possession of article by error, lost article or lost domestic animal applies to this law and civil law Article 253. But in the case of the possession of article by mistake, one cannot claim the cost by Article 3 and the compensation by Article 4.
CIVIC ACT
ARTICLE 253. (THE ACQUISITION OF OWNERSHIP OF THE LOST ARTICLE):
If the owner does not claim the right of ownership within one year of announcement according to the law, the founder has the fight of ownership.
LIVESTOCK PRODUCT SANITATION AND INSPECTION ACT
ARTICLE 2. (DEFINITION, ETC.)
The terminology used in this act shall be defined as follows:
1. "Livestock" means cows, horses, sheep (including wild sheep), and pigs (including wild boars, which breeds domestically). Same with the following: chicken, duck and other animals prescribed by the presidential decree.
LIVESTOCK PRODUCT SANITATION AND INSPECTION ACT ENFORCEMENT ORDINANCE
ARTICLE 2. (EXTENT OF LIVESTOCK):
"Other animals prescribed by the presidential decree" of the Article 2 Paragraph 1 of livestock product sanitation and inspection act are stated following each paragraph.
1. Geese, turkeys, quail, and pheasants but, quails and pheasants are limited to breeding domestically.
2. Rabbits.
NOTE:
* August 28, 1975 - Dogs were added to the list of livestock
* June 13, 1978 - Dogs were removed from the list of livestock
NOWHERE does it state that the sale or consumption of dogmeat is illegal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dogbert
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: Killbox 90210
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
| But if you disagree then show pictures of it to immigration officials and roll the dice, and don't forget to tell your friends and family and future coworkers back home about your eating of dogs if you think there's no moral issue. |
Did I say anything about a moral issue?
You are an intellectually dishonest, or maybe just stupid, individual.
Why don't you check the law you so arrogantly cited and show me where the illegality is.
Then kindly STFU. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eamo
Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Location: Shepherd's Bush, 1964.
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As someone who spent time in Holland I see no conflict with the concept of something being technically illegal yet allowed to happen because there is a large public demand for it.
Morally, eating dogmeat in Korea is all about the treatment and slaughter of these dogs. If the reports are true that they are horribly maltreated then killed in an inhumane way then I would not like to eat that meat. If I could be assured that the animal had a decent life then was quickly killed then I would be more than happy to wolf it down.
But just saying something is illegal so we shouldn't do it shows an unsophisticated approach. There are many shades of grey between black and white. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nambucaveman
Joined: 03 Aug 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As long as this conversation stays productive it's fine. Once it turns into a flame war it will get lock.
In short, let's keep it civil.
Last edited by Nambucaveman on Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:16 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dogbert wrote: |
| VanIslander wrote: |
| But if you disagree then show pictures of it to immigration officials and roll the dice, and don't forget to tell your friends and family and future coworkers back home about your eating of dogs if you think there's no moral issue. |
Did I say anything about a moral issue?
You are an intellectually dishonest, or maybe just stupid, individual.
Why don't you check the law you so arrogantly cited and show me where the illegality is.
Then kindly STFU. |
See? Another enlightened convert.
Nice work VanIslander. Truly.
| Nambucaveman wrote: |
| As long as this conversation stays productive it's fine. Once it turns into a flame war it will get lock. |
The Mods are wavering too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djsmnc
Joined: 20 Jan 2003
Location: Dave's ESL Cafe
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| VanIslander wrote: |
and don't forget to tell your friends and family and future coworkers back home about your eating of dogs if you think there's no moral issue. |
I did, and they were all like "What does it taste like? I would probably try it if I were there."
or
"Yeah, the strangest thing I ate was deer, and it wasn't that bad" or something to that effect. Frog legs, duck, rabbit, whatever. It's not like they're endangered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rigamarole
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If given the chance, I'd try dog meat.
I'd also try human flesh. Too bad the Hufu site shut down. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
flotsam
Joined: 28 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| djsmnc wrote: |
| VanIslander wrote: |
and don't forget to tell your friends and family and future coworkers back home about your eating of dogs if you think there's no moral issue. |
I did, and they were all like "What does it taste like? I would probably try it if I were there."
or
"Yeah, the strangest thing I ate was deer, and it wasn't that bad" or something to that effect. Frog legs, duck, rabbit, whatever. It's not like they're endangered. |
This is just a freak exception. When I told my friends about it...well, let's just say it took weeks to strip the tar out of my hair and the pluck the feathers out of my bungholio.
I learned my lesson that day.
(OK, I'll stop. But Miss Nambu, I really must question your judgement on ever referring to any discussion on this topic, on this board, as "productive". Slap-ass silly, maybe.)
Last edited by flotsam on Sun Sep 10, 2006 7:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| 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
