One note: The writer of that gawdawful post initially claimed that the Korean's post cited surveys that did not exist. The Korean demanded that to be corrected, and now that portion reads even more ridiculous. The writer thinks that the survey, conducted by Korean Society of Food and Nutrition, is a malicious lie spread by the vast, dog-meat-eating conspiracy because one Korean guy thinks it's a lie. Classic.
-EDIT 3/6/2010- Oh, this is so great. The cowards at KARA put up this notice on the article:
Unlike KARA, non-genuine advocates of dog eating are all welcome on AAK! Yes, even those who think other people should not eat dog meat. The Korean will tell them to go fuck themselves, but they are still welcome to come and comment, either here or on the original post. Heck, the Korean even responded to one of the objections on the original post.NOTICE
Due to abuses, commenting for Member Articles has been disabled. This is an information portal, not a forum for pro-meat rants or a blog where anything goes.
Any accounts and comments made that are deemed to be not by GENUINE advocates of animal rights (i.e. those directed here from the Ask a Korean blog site) will be deleted. Direct any complaints to admin at animalrightskorea.org
Please note that all items in the Member Articles section are written by KARA English site members and represent their uncensored opinions. If you have other opinions not supporting animal rights, you will need to express them elsewhere in the appropriate forum. Thank you for your understanding.
Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.
Posts
I also like how a large part of the post personally attacks you but I can't seem to locate any information about the author.
ReplyDeleteJust skimmed through the site and read the post. That was definitely a perfect example of an ad hominem argument! She definitely has taken a personal issue with you.
ReplyDeleteMidway through her post she does try to put some semblance of logic and coherence, but I gotta say she better tone down the personal attacks and the emotional juice. Over that tirade, none of the readers are going to heed the points she's trying to make.
Talk about moral hauteur!
Repeat after me: DO NOT LINK TO TROLLS. DO NOT LINK TO TROLLS.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, you just gave that article waaaay too much traffic.
(Thank you, as always, for writing detailed explanations of Korean culture... I had missed the post on dog meat.)
LOL. eff the haters. you're awesome!
ReplyDeletethe author makes some pretty good comments, amidst what is an ironically rambling and melodramatic post.
ReplyDeleteparker said...
ReplyDeleteI also like how a large part of the post personally attacks you but I can't seem to locate any information about the author.
This was my first thought, too. The author hides behind the coward's cloak of anonymity. There is no date on the piece or any other identifying information on it's origin. I would give the author's rants short shrift. (And, this from someone (me) who personally finds the idea of eating dog repulsive, but then, again, it's not of my culture.)
I wonder what the psychology of this person is. This reminds me of one time when I went to Pet's mart, trying to adopt a kitten. A volunteer from a shelter there lectured me for almost 20 minutes on how well these animals should be treated, then she asked me for a bank statement to prove that I can provide premium food and care for the kitten. So, I felt uncomfortable and just left. If I were her and really wanted the best for the animals, I would not have done that. I was a volunteer in Humane Society before, so I know how many animals are euthanized if they are not adopted.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely love animals but I hate people who say they love animals more than people. I don't even think these people truly love animals. They have illusion that the animals are better than humans because the animals don't talk back. If a person truly loved animals, he would love humans too, therefore trying to understand other cultures and not deciding that one culture is barbaric just because they eat something different.
The bizarre and telling thing is that that site doesn’t allow comments on the bottom either so you can only hear one side of the story.
ReplyDeleteBTW yes Chinese people DO eat cats and dogs, I make no excuses for it I feel I do not have to but some people will ask. I personally don’t, as it is expensive as hell. But the reason why Chinese people eat anything that moves is because of famine. Which is surprisingly common in China as explained in the book China Land of famine that says that China has had a famine every other year (of varying intensity and varying provinces) for the past 3000 years. By extension as Korea has been conquered by China more than a few times in the past 2000 or so years, Korea has also had such famines and are less squeamish about eating most animals. The last famine in Europe was the great potato blight in 1853. Compared to the last (man made) famine in China in 1952-on.
The thing that struck me about the article is the sheer arrogance of the tone. There were attempts at logic, a lot of ad hominem, and so many emotionally loaded words that there's no way a rational person could take the writer seriously, even if he/she actually DID make some good points, cleverly hidden beneath the sound and fury.
ReplyDeleteMy own stance on dog meat is mostly philosophical - unless you're saying NO meat should be eaten by humans, there's nothing wrong with eating any particular animal, as long as 1. the animal is raised or harvested and killed in a humane, sustainable way (tuna's out) 2. the animal is not endangered (had the opportunity to eat endangered turtle soup in china. Didn't) and 3. it's yummy.
People who say pork is ok but dog isn't are silly, in my opinion: that one animal's cuter than the other shouldn't mean anything... plus, pigs ARE at least as cute, and as smart as dogs.
@ The Chinese guy
ReplyDeleteOh that explains it, Koreans have a taste for dogs because of the barbarian Chinese conquerors who starved their subjects! I'll give you that Sinocentric worldview for nothing. I have no issues with people eating dogs or even cats. But I could never eat those cute things.
That article was very... emotionally charged. It seemed more like a ranty, ravey, rambling personal attack on you and your opinions than a well-thought out argument. I think what annoyed me most was that the writer spent so much time trying to discredit you in the beginning by bringing up so much about you. It doesn't do much to further the argument. I kept thinking, OK, one person does not represent an entire country, I get it. Now tell me why you think you're right.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, I don't think it's wrong to eat dog meat. I don't, and neither of my parents' cultures do, but I don't see why it's so taboo. I mean, we eat cows, sheeps, pigs, and even little lambs...
...continued from my post above,
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess unless I was starving to death.
Food is food. Anything living can be eaten to provide nourishment and energy to anything else living. I don't think humans are better than "animals" (as humans are technically animals from a biological standpoint), yet I see no problem with eating other animals. Dogs eat other animals. Bears eat other animals. Rabbits eat other living things (plants are alive). So why should humans not eat them? I also find it highly hypocritical to fuss about eating dog while having no qualms about eating a big juicy steak.
ReplyDeleteI love how he/she, after a long and rambling post about her opinion with quotes conveniently taken out of context and/or completely twisted to the point of irrelevance, he/she tries to paint you as the one trying to shape the world to your own world view.
ReplyDelete"Beyond that, opinionated world views like Park's make you realize that humans have a long way to evolve before attaining anything close to civilization."
Classic case of the pot calling the teacup black.
Also: the comment and the response now at the bottom of the page now makes it clear that this person is not at all interested in discussing things: basically tells a person defending The Korean's stance to piss up a rope if s/he disagrees with the article. Not even worth engaging.
ReplyDeleteWow. That article was just as annoying as Natural Cures "They" Don't Want You To Know About by Kevin Trudeau. I had to read that for a pseudoscience class.
ReplyDeleteThe article was for an animal rights site, so whoever wrote it was obviously preaching to the choir. It was rather lovely that they posted the link back to the original dog eating article so that anyone intrigued could read it and form their own opinion...maybe they'll even see how the author just picked segments out of the blog post to complain about.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's just funny to attack korean because they eat dog, and thinking you are superior because you eat only veggies.
ReplyDeleteWell Korean eat a LOT of veggies. More then people in North america and Europe.
Also Korean eat a lot of meat. Not only the good part. Bones and Fatty part of the meat as well. Organs etc..
A normal meal is much more balanced. Meat is never the biggest part of it.
And last thing, I conciser myself eco-conscious, but really hate when people try to make you feel guilty about being Human. They are really acting as religious freaks.
@ Alex.
ReplyDeleteSort of, in that French people eat Horse meat, British people don't, well actually they do as donkey and horse meat is shoved inside salami sausages and nobody reads the label. Quite simply you won't find it on the menu in a restaurant in the UK.
However you cross the water to France and you can find horse meat quite common. The true origins are unknown much like the Chinese / Koreans dog eating. It is often attributed to the fact that Napoleon conscripted an enourmous army and tried to take on the Russians, the Russian winter meant they lost and while retreating they ran out of food and thus slaughtered their horses.
The first man to the South Pole bought along a dog team and ended up eating half of them as a specific tactic to beat Scot to the South Pole.
For Korea I meant that it is generally in the same geographic area as famine stricken Northern China and therefore they would have probably recieved more than their fair share of famine themselves.
Regardless of being conquered or not.
The North for example has had famine for many years some of it man made some of it natural, and therefore it is a reflection of the experience in China. Just because the south is a couple hundred miles south doesn't mean they are immune to this these occurances.
South's technology and open trade means they can just import food if crops fail in the South.
The issue at hand is our generation by enlarge has never suffered true hunger. I mean REAL hunger with nothing to eat not for a day but weeks. All your arguements about not doing this and that turn to sand when you would be put in such a circumstance which hopefully none of us will ever encounter. The Han Chinese in the man made famine in the 1950s made people so hungry they are leaves off trees. Even worse was that villagers started to turn on each other attacking and murdering the ones that didn't fit into their villages and eating them. They even got to the stage where they ate each other's children.
My dad a complete Chinaphile who for some reason idolises Mao who was a monster even acknowledges the famines, but puts blame on the Russians due to the 1954-1956 soviet-sino split (Stalin annoyed Mao due to lack of mig support over all of Korea, Mao wanted to be independent, the USSR instantly demanded its $400,000 back).
"Due to abuses commenting for Member Articles has been disabled. This is an information portal, not a forum for omnivore opinions or a blog where anything goes."
ReplyDelete... Okay, now I'm genuinely creeped out. The fact that the article was written with a tone similar to a jilted lover declaring that she doesn't need you any more doesn't help either.
It's all Peter Singer's fault for applying brutal utilitarianism to vegetarianism without explaining how it works in layman's terms... :D
"The Korean's post is made of completely blatant one sidedness in a hardly secret effort to advance the omnivore agenda. If you don't agree with me 1000%, you aren't allowed to talk to me."
ReplyDeleteLovely.
This is where the world has gone? Everyone in their own shell of like-minded minions, not allowing anyone else to even participate in the debate? No wonder the single 40 year old man has more validity than the survey. Nobody he knows eats dog meat, therefore only crazies do.
Yes, there have been a minority that eat dog in Korea,BUT not the vast majority. This was unfair to paint all Koreans enjoying dog. Personally, I find the minority eating dog as repulsive.
ReplyDeleteMatthew
known before as Kang Sin-Chol
@steeleagle94:
ReplyDeleteHey, I didn't even post an opinion and my account on that site was deleted. No exchange of ideas permitted period, apparently.
These animal rights loons you had a run in with on your site are even worse than the whale loons that pop up on my site from time to time. That is quite an accomplishment.
ReplyDeleteaztecs use to eat dogs, have you ever heard about xoloitszcuitle?
ReplyDeletehttp://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xoloitzcuintle
Im not sure if its happening today in Mexico but this breed was raised specifically to become as a main dish in aztec cuisine
I find funny all those PETA-like NGOs, I can't stand why they declare their love and devotion to animals whilst there are kids suffering from famine, abuse, many cities in the world have beggars, homeless and people in disgrace. It most be a joke if they pretend become a moral autority in life protection when they spend thousands of dollars in useless campaigns with the only pursue of fake protagonism instead of helping such people. How much does it cost a bag of pedigree crap? how much does it cost a meal for a child?
Dear Korean, don't take them seriously, don't give them the chance to use your blog for more fake usless protagonism, they just don't worth it. The day when all those PETA-like ngos change the "save the animals" crap, for save children in need, they will have a vote
How do you folks feel about consuming mommy's milk? A stranger's mom's milk that is. PETA has no problems with this.
ReplyDeleteBreastmilk cheese, just like mom use to make.
Personally I would have to make sure the chef isn't being abusive to his wife. And that the wife isn't on some weird drugs, eating foods with nasty preservatives. She best be getting at least 8 hours of REM sleep on a nice clean bed. Oh and a photo of the wife wouldn't hurt. :)
The double standards of the Korean and his followers are so transparent it is laughable. You blame the other writer for things that are found on this site in equal doses among commenters and especially the Korean, who tells everyone to fuck themselves if they don't agree with him. But apparently he's not "arrogant," "ranty," "emotional" or "ad hominem"--not to the Korean's pals here or over at the original dog-meat post. Why? Obviously you have the same conservative, anti-animal rights outlook. You show your biases by putting your own spin on things when it suits you. How typical.
ReplyDeleteI'm certainly glad someone stood up for the voiceless victims of the dog meat trade with another perspective on the issue.
The KARA people are under no obligation to run the website the way you want. Like they say, it's not a blog. Yet the people here thought they were somehow entitled to go over there and harass them, like a bunch of school kids, armed with your selective indignation. Good to see KARA put a stop to it. I'm sure they have enough crap to deal with already without you lot adding to it.
@GI Korea - Once again, a typical response. Dont bother, I've got a pretty good idea who the "loons" are.
@vegan athiest
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that The Korean balances his "go fuck yourself"s with valid arguments. He's opinionated, yes, but he also presents arguments rather than personal attacks. (Not quite as true for the commenters, I'll grant you that). Furthermore, he clearly shows his reasons for why he believes what he believes. They might not lead to the same conclusion for everyone, but they are there, just the same.
By contrast, the KARA article struck me (and I imagine a good many people here) as a highly emotional piece with little to no actual arguments or data to back up its claims. In addition, it took some of his quotes entirely out of context and made them look much worse than they were. (granted, some were already pretty over the top). Furthermore, the author had the gall to present a piece that was just as, if not more, opinionated than The Koreans and then to assume the moral high ground for not having an opinionated world view. "Beyond that, opinionated world views like Park's make you realize that humans have a long way to evolve before attaining anything close to civilization." That sentence was what ruined an otherwise perfectly good rant for me. To claim that a piece that expresses an opinion with hard data and reasoned arguments (and maybe a few expletives) is somehow less civilized than a piece that is based on quotes taken out of context and hearsay, and is more a reaction than an actual argument is pure arrogance.
Furthermore, I think KARA is going after their goal entirely wrong. Unless they want to merely be a sounding board for complaints, they should make their arguments palatable for people who don't already agree with them 1000%. And they should also work to make them convincing as well. That is the difference between KARA and the Korean. This is a blog, people can be as assholey as they want, and it's fine. But for an organization that is trying to advance an agenda, as I imagine they are with a name like Animal Rights Korea as their URL, then they need to find a way to bring new members into the fold, and such ranty attacks are not the way to go.
Do not get me wrong. I want to give animal rights people a voice, and believe me, I don't want animals to be tortured, either. Industrial meat-farming and raising dogs in cages is horrible and should not happen, but in order for it to stop, organizations like KARA need to tone down on the hate so as not to turn off the people who like meat or on the fence. Who know? Maybe we can have animal rights people work together with health conscious meat-eaters against such horrible conditions that our animals currently grow up in. And maybe we can foster a civil dialogue. But for that to happen, we need to stop demanding that everyone agree completely with us as a precondition to even saying hello. That is where KARA fails. They don't even want to acknowledge your existence if you don't already agree with them.
@vegan atheist
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with Michael: requiring people to agree with you before you engage them completely defeats the purpose of putting your ideas out there, unless your only goal is to make people who already agree with you feel good about themselves.
I agree as well, that it'd be nice for animal rights groups to have a legitimate, and respected voice in Korean society, but to have that respected voice, shrieking and ranting and refusing to listen to dissenting opinions is not the way to do it.
If you're trying to convince people of your views, Michael is correct that you're going about it all wrong, and yes, your rhetoric is so vehement that it is more likely to turn people off, rather than convincing them.
I think what Kara said about you is true..great job Kara! This is my opinion, and I have the right to express it!
ReplyDeleteand vegan atheist.. well said!
ReplyDeleteThe funny thing about the site is that while they disabled member comments for "abuses", KARA allowed outright an outright racist comment to be burned into the comment section of the member articles that simply insulted Koreans (and a whole bunch of other nationalities) and gave little to no support for animal rights in Korea. As if that's not going to do anything but make them look like a bunch of loons. It's not that KARA is actually made up of loons: Helping animals is a good thing, but such an organization should be based on improving Korea's attitudes towards animals, not outright deriding Korea. That is what gives animal rights activists a bad name, and also sets civil rights back half a century.
ReplyDeleteGinger, so does everyone else including The Korean you lousy hypocrite.
ReplyDelete