UK Ban on eating dogs blocked by Justice Ministry

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by DonGlock26, Sep 16, 2019.

  1. Just Glocks

    Just Glocks

    Messages:
    8,254
    Likes Received:
    13,582
    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2017
    Location:
    Outlaw state of mind !
    The more you eat dog or cat the more animal those people become themselves !

    In America it's just not justified and those that practice this are less human for it !
     
  2. badge315

    badge315

    Messages:
    5,013
    Likes Received:
    2,311
    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2008
    Location:
    Middleburg, FL
    Yeah, well...England isn't one of those countries.

    Frankly, I don't think much of Asian "cultural norms". These are the same people who would blithely see a species hunted to extinction just so they could grind up their horns to make boner pills. Or make their fins into soup.
     

  3. Dave514

    Dave514

    Messages:
    38,162
    Likes Received:
    33,250
    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2013
    Location:
    USSA
    Well got dang, that applies to any animal. I don't want cows or pigs or chickens treated like that either but it is a separate issue than whether or not we should be allowed to eat them.
     
  4. flyover

    flyover

    Messages:
    11,386
    Likes Received:
    29,592
    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2012
    Location:
    Western Kansas
    What do you call an Asian with 5 or more dogs?

    A rancher.

    I first heard this joke when the Vietnamese settled in to this area and started opening Oriental restaurants in Kansas.
     
  5. JFrame

    JFrame

    Messages:
    53,344
    Likes Received:
    52,824
    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic, US of A
    As far as I know, there's only one U.S. pig vendor who keeps pigs penned in cages no larger than their bodies for their entire lives. Every other vendor has agreed that that's an extreme practice, and has modified or has announced plans to modify their facilities.

    But again, I'm not even talking about the less appetizing (no pun intended) aspects of U.S. meat production. I'm talking about the wholly gratuitous cruelty and barbarity being subjected on dogs in some Asian countries.

    .
     
    Just Glocks likes this.
  6. pittpa

    pittpa What did I come in here for?

    Messages:
    7,512
    Likes Received:
    14,435
    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Location:
    Fortress of Solitude on 11th floor - SW PA 'burbs
    [​IMG]
     
  7. DAKA

    DAKA

    Messages:
    6,704
    Likes Received:
    8,156
    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2009
    Location:
    125 mi N of the S most USA point FFL
    Me too, and so do my "fur babies"
     
    Just Glocks likes this.
  8. OldDad

    OldDad

    Messages:
    354
    Likes Received:
    472
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2016
    So I guess female circumcision is OK, as it's a cultural tradition? How about "honor killing?"
     
    mike from st pe likes this.
  9. JFrame

    JFrame

    Messages:
    53,344
    Likes Received:
    52,824
    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic, US of A
    Of course, my position would be opposition to both of those -- unless you're somehow wildly misinterpreting my previous statements...? :dunno:

    .
     
    Terry G likes this.
  10. Gundude

    Gundude

    Messages:
    8,387
    Likes Received:
    1,217
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    What an eloquent defense of banning stuff. I hope our "cultural norms" don't stray too much further into thinking guns are bad...
     
  11. JFrame

    JFrame

    Messages:
    53,344
    Likes Received:
    52,824
    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic, US of A
    Yeah -- I suppose we all have to take a stand on what matters for us.

    Staking a position in defense of "man's best friend" is easy. :)

    .
     
    Just Glocks, badge315 and Terry G like this.
  12. mike from st pe

    mike from st pe

    Messages:
    1,583
    Likes Received:
    1,269
    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2007
    Location:
    St Pete FL
    Why do Japan and Norway still kill whales?
     
  13. Terry G

    Terry G

    Messages:
    2,732
    Likes Received:
    4,215
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Because they can.
     
    Just Glocks and JFrame like this.
  14. Gundude

    Gundude

    Messages:
    8,387
    Likes Received:
    1,217
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Why does taking a stand so often involve having the government ban something? Is that really the only tool in the box?
     
  15. Mugsie1

    Mugsie1

    Messages:
    515
    Likes Received:
    1,025
    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2019
    Kowtow'g to Muslims again - yup, Britain is lost.
    Sun Tsu said it best "The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy. Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

    The Muslims have done just that in Britain, France, ...
     
    Terry G likes this.
  16. Terry G

    Terry G

    Messages:
    2,732
    Likes Received:
    4,215
    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2004
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Yes, and that's why a gun ban is so important. To our enemies.
     
    Just Glocks and Mugsie1 like this.
  17. Gundude

    Gundude

    Messages:
    8,387
    Likes Received:
    1,217
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Well, assault weapon ownership is really just a white male cultural thing, that shouldn't get in the way of a ban that the majority of this country would agree with.

    Right?... :whistling:
     
  18. Gundude

    Gundude

    Messages:
    8,387
    Likes Received:
    1,217
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    So "not justified [according to the majority]" = "must be banned"?

    The gun grabbers are listening.

    Oh wait, they invented it, I guess we're listening. :(
     
  19. JFrame

    JFrame

    Messages:
    53,344
    Likes Received:
    52,824
    Joined:
    May 29, 2001
    Location:
    Mid-Atlantic, US of A
    Philosophically speaking, I am receptive and sympathetic to your question.

    I guess we can take the delineation of an intrusive government to the opposite extreme, and just ask, "Why should there be any national borders at all?" "Why ban sex with infants?" Etc.

    I guess "society" sets up the limits, and it's up to every successive generation to push back the limit, pull back the limit, or keep it secure. Fortunately, we have a Constitution and BoR, written by a collection of the most brilliant minds in history assembled at one spot, that set some overarching guidelines. In truth, there is no other nation on Earth that can say that.

    Someone above mentioned the rhinoceros. The white rhino neared extinction because of some cockamamie occult belief by the Chinese that their rendered horn was a powerful aphrodisiac and male performance enhancement, which caused the animals to be slaughtered at exorbitant prices. Now, how arbitrary and whimsical a reason is that for an animal species to die off? The only thing that saved the white rhino from extinction was government interference, providing them sanctuaries, and diligently hunting down the poachers who would take them. Sadly, at least two other species of rhinos HAVE become extinct. If an effective means of saving the white rhino existed beyond a government ban on poaching them, it would be interesting to hear.

    You ask, "Is that really the only tool in the box?"

    Frankly, I don't know. I'm certainly willing to hear any practical alternatives... Not in terms of a "dog-eating ban," necessarily, but in the general application of the concept.

    .
     
    Just Glocks and badge315 like this.
  20. Gundude

    Gundude

    Messages:
    8,387
    Likes Received:
    1,217
    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2003
    Well, there's the general principle that "your rights end where the next person's begins". That's person, not whale or cow or dog (or rhinoceros). So that takes care of the question of child sex, genital mutilation, honor killings, etc. That's the easy part.

    Whose right are we infringing by eating a dog, or owning an AR, or smoking some meth (assuming we didn't illegally take it from somebody else)? It gets a little fuzzy, because the argument is that some behaviors and activities indirectly affect our rights, or usually lead to behaviors that directly affect our rights. The main difference between liberals, conservatives and libertarians is in the theories we come up with about how our rights are (theoretically) violated by some activity, and how much we look to government to curtail that activity.

    What always gets me is when somebody (say, a conservative) explicitly calls out another (say, a liberal) based on their theory of a rights violation or the quickness they want to resort to government to ban it, and then in the next breath assert the same theory and the same remedy, for only a cosmetically different issue.

    I'm not saying there are easy answers, but I am saying we'll never even get to the point of exploring them if we can't see what we're doing whenever we defend a ban on something that doesn't directly infringe on somebody else's right. I'm not saying there should never be such bans, only that defending any such ban should at least raise a flag in a person's thought process as to whether they're being consistent in their respect of other people's rights, or are just being tribal and/or selfish.