| Unreasonableness to the Opposition of Eating Dog Meat 1. Why are They Killing and Eating Dog, a Friend of Human Beings? Anti-dog meat activists claim that a dog should be treated as human because it s a friend to people. But in Western countries, if they think a dog is a friend, the dog must be at the same level as people. In other words, humans are the same level of dogs. An equality between people and dogs is an insult. It's offensive to say that humans are beasts. The analysis of animal rightist's claims through syllogism leads the followings. As dogs and people are urged to be friends or partners, the equality of dogs=people can be formed. It induces that dogs and people are the same level. This means dogs and people are equal. Thus those who urged that as dogs are equal to people, they should be treated as man are the same ones as dogs. This has the same meaning that man should be treated as dog. As the claims by those who think of dogs as their sons or daughters have the same meaning that people are sons or daughters of dogs, the terms man like dog, or son like dog, or woman like dog can't be an abusive languages. Because it means dog like man. And as 'Dog is man' has the same meaning of 'man is dog, the people who insist on that can possibly be called 'You are dog.' Whether they make friends with a dog or are at the same level of a dog is of their own choice. The matter lies in criticizing those people who don't believe in such an equality and forcing others to be so. If a man can be a friend to a dog, that meaning might be limited to the dog that one breeds. How can a man become a friend to billions of dogs across the world that one can not meet? A fighting dog, a guard dog, and a hunting dog, which are likely to bite you to death you if you approach; are they your friends? In France, it is said that the number of people who are bitten by dogs, and file lawsuits amounts to half a million a year. Can a malicious and savage dog that bites or attack you be your friend?
2. Is a Dog a Spouse to Human Beings?
Anti-dog meat eating activists claim that dogs should have rights as human beings do; thus, they use the term, dog's right. But how does a dog has a right as human beings? Language like this doesn't appear in dictionary, defining anything. Also they urge that a dog is a spousal animal to people, but spouse means married pair in relation to the others. How can a dog be a husband and wife to people? So such language doesn't appear in any dictionary, either. They insist that because a dog-eating habit is no better than a man-eating habit, such habit should be removed. These are extremely groundless irrationality, which could be possible only when dogs are seen as human beings. A word and a thought should have the universality which can be understood by all common people, but above mentioned words can't be generally used and understood as well, since they make an absurd comparison of what can't be compared with others. That kind of newly-coined term can't be carried in dictionary, for their absurdity is guised as reasonableness. 3. Only a Dog's Life Sublime?
Anti-dog meat eating activists pick the sublimity of life as their first cause for anti-dog meat eating. As all the animals and plants are valuable, killing dog can't be a matter of wrangling. All the living creatures have their own values and reasons for their own living, regardless of whether or not they look useful or useless. Even though they seem worthless, they only appear so because their usefulness has not yet been found. All the living creatures including human beings are made up of proteins, fats, carbohydrates, and genes, which make up one's DNA. Thus if they are going to talk about the reverence of life, first they should not eat cows, pigs, vegetables, fruits, grains, nuts as well as dogs. It is bacause they are the brothers branched from the same ancestral lines. The difference between genes of human beings and those of dogs, pigs, and cows is only little more than 5%. So if claim of anti-dog meat eating should get persuasive, cows and pigs in the same famoly lines also should not be slaughtered. Vegetarianism seems non-threatening to animal right's activists, but it also costs other lives. Vegetables make solar energy into starch by photosynthesis. Human beings take solar energy directly by eating vegetables , or they are taking it secondarily by eating other animals taking solar energy. Like this, human beings are the subordinate-nutrition creature, which lives by exploiting other plants and animals. Thus the claim of animal protection, vegetarianism, or anti-dog meat eating denies the natural order of the food chain. Living things have survived according to the survival of the fittest and the law of jungle for several billon years. So it is not a matter of criticism. The protection of human beings should always come before that of dogs, so the protection of dog before that of human is contradictory like putting a cart before horse. As dog follow people, the claim that dog should be protected is also subjective, and that means giving hearts only among acquaintances or cliques. In other words, this is almost the same idea as to make up a corrupted world. If dogs are to be protected, other animals should also be protected.
4. Culture is Relative
As human culture develops differently according to race, language, religion, customs, history, geography, climate, and nationality, no reason can be found for being criticized by different cultures. Westerners, however, ridicule other cultures and find faults within them. In addition, anti-dog meat activists promote dog meat eating in Korea as barbaric and cruel. Some dogs in our nation are simply considered as domesticated animals to be raised and killed for meat. Our history of eating dog meat has been in our food culture since ancient times. Foreigners are acting aggressively by intervening in our dietary culture. We don't criticize other cultures about their dietary habits, so why do they criticize ours?
5. Prejudice and Predominance of Western Culture People from western countries eat animal flesh every day. They think that the killing of animals without inflicting pain is humane, but painfully killing animals is inhumane. But nothing is more atrocious and cruel than to kill animal even by any means. This logic is deceptive as it contradicts the western appetite for meat. In spite of this fact, animal protectionists criticize Koreans who mainly have a vegetarian diet, by faulting the ingestion of dog meat. For food rich in protein, westerners predominantly eat cheese and in the east there is soy bean curd. Cheese is made from extracting and fermenting milk protein. The cheese making process needs rennin (chymosin) extracted from calves to catalyze the coagulation of milk protein. Nearly 20 million heads of calves are slaughtered every year to make cheese, the east, we get soy bean curd by setting soy bean protein with seawater. Which of these two processes are more humanistic? As far as animal cruelty is concerned, western cultures authority over eastern culture is flawed by the sport of bullfighting. In this sport the bull is intentionally irritated to induce the animal to attack. The bull is pierced with spears several times over a long period of time and suffers a horrendous and bloody death. People who enjoy this sport are fond of watching this barbaric scene, and applaud the heroism of taking down the beast. There seems nothing more merciless and inhumane in the maltreatment of animals, yet this cruelty lives on. Bullfighting is what some westerners deem as cultural, and in doing so, vividly displays the prejudice and predominance from the west. If bullfighting were part of our culture, the international community would be in an uproar and boycott Korean products and the World Cup in 2002. There is also the case of the self-righteous French actress Brigitte Bardot, who harshly criticized Korea for killing dogs, while pretending not to know that inhabitants of Tahiti eat dog meat as well.
6. The Love of Pet Dogs is a True Maltreatment of Animals
According to the law of the survival of the fittest, the strong and the superior survive. The dog is an animal that had been managing to live for itself, and whose forefather is the wolf and wild dog. From its domestication, the dog has lost its function for survival. The more humans fend for the dog, the more the dog is deprived of its self-reliance. Feeding, loving, vaccinating, and providing it shelter all accelerate weakening the dog. Moreover, the more a dog is crossbred to make it cute and small, the weaker its adaptability for living becomes. If this is the trend, the dog will come to lose its fighting instinct for living and be weakened; therefore, dogs are completely dependent on humans and can only survive if cared for. The person who demands a pet dog is really being abusive to the dog species as a whole. The act of taming a dog, cutting and styling its fur, adorning it with clothing, thinking of it as a plaything, and loving it, are forms of mistreatment as well. Such things are not desirable or helpful to a dog. These are things that people are willing to do in their own interest. Even living with a dog is a kind of mistreatment. In some cases a dog is used for protection, but is it the dog owner's intention to keep separated from other humans while living with a dog? As humans should live among humans, so should dogs. In reference to this statement, loving dogs is self-complacency, or a sort of mistaken one-sided love towards a dog, and this dysfunctional love weakens the dogs' natural instincts. On the other hand, because small and weak dogs are not very useful, the cultures that eat dog meat help to select and maintain the dominant breeds. The correct way to show love toward the dog is to leave it in its natural state. Leaving it in this condition assures the dog the opportunity to propagate its own breed without the aid of human intervention. Through this process the weak can be naturally weeded out while the strong survive.
7. The Offensive Propensity of Western Culture
Marvin Harris, an anthropologist of American culture, in talking about the culture of food, said that in carnivorous cultures humans do not eat dog, but those cultures that predominately eat vegetable and grain do in fact eat dog. People from western cultures don't eat dog meat because of their love of dogs, but because there are many other animals that are more efficiently suited to producing meat. Harris also alludes to the cultural relativism of food taste. He claims that dietary habits should not be criticized or insulted only because of difference. Like this, all cultures are relative, so food habits should not be criticized by only one standard. Westerners find fault with Koreans and overlook the cultural difference because of their own personal prejudice and irrationality. The only argument that people from western countries rely on is how a culture can dare to eat a friend. Can dogs and humans become friends? While we Koreans were agricultural settlers eating mainly vegetation, westerners were nomads eating mainly animal flesh, travelling around fishing and raising livestock, and in a sense more aggressive. The fork and knife are symbols of eating in western culture. The fork and knife were descended from triple-pronged spears and knives that were used to kill animals and people from other warring tribes. These people killed many animals with their triple-pronged spears, but now criticize those who eat dog meat once in a while. This in my view is an offensive act and disrespectful to Korean culture. Westerners criticize others for having different viewpoints. Their point of views and cultural values distort their view of our culture, and this will not end until cultures like ours submit and assimilate to theirs. Their accusations are very serious and threatening and follow only their own accord of controlling the affairs of the world.
8. Pet Dog and Edible Dog
Koreans seldom kill and eat dogs that they have raised. The edible dogs are professionally raised and are circulated in markets. These dogs are considered livestock. A recent questionnaire showed that 16& of those asked, killed and ate dogs that they had raised. It should be noted this practice is a Korean tradition in some parts of Korea. In his book 'Good to eat; Riddles of food and culture, Waveland Press, Inc.(1985)', author Marvin Harris, wrote about culture and food. He said that pet can be killed and eaten, so there shouldn't be a rule to forbid dogs from being killed and eaten. A person should have the right to either raise a dog as a pet or raise the dog to be eaten. Also, Koreans shouldn't have to defend themselves when criticized for eating their pets. Koreans are expected by the world community to act in a submissive manner, but we Koreans will not bow down.
9. Is the Dog Being Endangered if It is killed to eat?
Humans are at the top of the food chain and are omnivorous, so humans must maintain a constant flow of food whether its vegetable or animal. The livestock that is slaughtered and eaten every year is replenished through advanced breeding. Likewise, in Korea, the dog is bred in the same manner. Dog breeders replenish the nimber of dogs being eaten to insure its survival. From an ecological point of view, to breed dogs is to protect and preserve dogs as a dog breed and insure its livelihood. Thus whether raising a dog to eat or as a pet, the protection of the species is never in question. Those in animal protection should commend Korea's contribution to the maintaining of the dog species, rather than just condemn.
10. The Opposition of Eating Dog Meat only leads to the Extinction of Dogs
The opposition of eating dog meat in Korea will incur the extinction of dogs. That is to say, in Korea there are one million pet dogs, one million dogs for eating, which totals two million dogs. If dog meat were banned from eating, dogs for eating would be usless, which dogs finally have to be removed, with no need of breeding. Some powers are making a fuss of preventing from eating dog meat as if were their sublimes animal protection in the world, lost in the sense of responsibility, but they only voluntarity take the vanguards in endanging the dogs in Korea
11. Can Barbarians Abandoning Dogs criticize those Cultures that eat Dog Meat?
The number of abandoned dogs in western countries exceeds the numbers eaten in Korea. In Paris, there are about 100,000 dogs abandoned every year. No more than 20 years ago in the United States, people were abandoning up to 18 million dogs a year, with more than 120 million dollars being spent a year to house abandoned dogs. Nowadays, about 4 million pet dogs are annually abandoned, among which 2 million heads are being euthanized, some of which are partly buried and made into foodstuff for pet dog, cat and livestock. The recent wave of mad cow disease can be attributed to the dog carcass being put into animal feed. In Japan, the number of ownerless dogs comes to 260,000 annually. If the dog owner doesn't claim the pet, the dog will be burned to death and disposed. In Taiwan, 2 million dogs are abandoned, in Romania, 2 million, in Rumania, 2 million and in Italy, 800,000. In other European countries the situations are similar. The dogs are usually abandoned because the owners are tired of raising the pet or the dog loses its cute appeal. The dogs are left to wander the streets, ransacking garbage, urinating anddefecating in the streets, and spreading disease. There is nothing more inhumane than raising a dog, and then setting it free to fend for itself, only to have it starve to death. With this said, why should the international spot light focus only on the eating of dog meat? It seems much more humane to kill a dog promptly without inflicting pain to eat, rather than to abandon a dog that relies on humans for its existence.
12. Merciless Killing and Euthanasia
Animal protectionists believe that eating dog meat in Korea is maltreatment of the animal, whereas, euthanizing dogs in the west is a humanistic way to give the animal eternal peace. The fact that 3∼70 millions of dogs are being killed every year in the United States to be made into foodstuffs, shows us the double standard that exists on this issue. It is funny to think that differing methods of killing can be deemed humanistic and cruel. What dog wants to die? If intentionally killing a human, which of the two methods is not murder? The west continues to allow euthansia as a means to dispose of unwanted dogs, because of convenience. They insist that mercy killing should beis justifiable and humanistic and this kind of thinking will put no limit to slaughter of unwanted dogs. This double standard that exists shows the western attitude of self-righteousness. This can't but be reg | 
