Kenneth Leja wrote:

Asian countries like China think it's okay. Koreans think beating a
dog to death will release hormones that will make human eaters
sexually more virile.

Is this okay or is it just Western cultural bias that finds this
custom kinda sick?

I think it's okay if you haven't named them.
You should never eat anything with a name.

Seriously, though, as much as I love dogs and
cats and wouldn't think of eating one, I don't
think it's inherently immoral, any more so than
eat a cow or deer or chicken or pig or fish, etc.
Each person can decide for herself what animals
she considers proper to eat or whether or not it's
proper to eat them at all. It's a person choice.
Kate
--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

Kate Connally wrote in message ...
Kenneth Leja wrote:

Asian countries like China think it's okay. Koreans think beating a
dog to death will release hormones that will make human eaters
sexually more virile.

Is this okay or is it just Western cultural bias that finds this
custom kinda sick?

I think it's okay if you haven't named them.
You should never eat anything with a name.

Hey, you are finding excuses.
Would you ate pig known to you as number 48/7 :-)
Generally speaking, your suggestion is to never
eat an animal you have personal relations with?
That is not what happens in small farms.


Seriously, though, as much as I love dogs and
cats and wouldn't think of eating one, I don't
think it's inherently immoral, any more so than
eat a cow or deer or chicken or pig or fish, etc.
Each person can decide for herself what animals
she considers proper to eat or whether or not it's
proper to eat them at all. It's a person choice.

I think cultural restrictions/acceptions of society are
not less influential at least when choosing 'what not to eat'.
One could be lynched for eating pig in Iran.

Kate

Nick (Chicha).

Chicha wrote:

Kate Connally wrote in message ...
Kenneth Leja wrote:

Asian countries like China think it's okay. Koreans think beating a
dog to death will release hormones that will make human eaters
sexually more virile.

Is this okay or is it just Western cultural bias that finds this
custom kinda sick?

I think it's okay if you haven't named them.
You should never eat anything with a name.

Hey, you are finding excuses.
Would you ate pig known to you as number 48/7 :-)
Generally speaking, your suggestion is to never
eat an animal you have personal relations with?
That is not what happens in small farms.

Well, then, I guess that's why I'm not a farmer.
I guess I would have a problem actually *eating*
a pig with a name, but I sure couldn't kill it.

When I used to spend a lot of time on my grandfather's
family's farm they often killed a chicken for dinner.
I would have nothing to do with it - couldn't even
watch! But once it was dead I loved helping to clean
it and as a preteen I was big on science and biology
so used to do experiments while cleaning a chicken like
measuring the length of the intestines. I also would
save the heads in a jar of alcohol and then at a later
time I would dissect them. I loved dissecting eyeballs.
None of this grossed me out. And I loved eating the
chicken, but I was "chicken" to kill one.

Seriously, though, as much as I love dogs and
cats and wouldn't think of eating one, I don't
think it's inherently immoral, any more so than
eat a cow or deer or chicken or pig or fish, etc.
Each person can decide for herself what animals
she considers proper to eat or whether or not it's
proper to eat them at all. It's a person choice.

I think cultural restrictions/acceptions of society are
not less influential at least when choosing 'what not to eat'.
One could be lynched for eating pig in Iran.

I realise that, but I was just talking about what
would be considered moral vs. immoral, not about what
would happened in any particular place if you ate any
particular animal. You could consider it perfect
moral to eat a pig but refrain if you were in Iran
because you knew what the dominant culture felt about
it. Or you could do it in secret. ;-)

Anyway, as far as I am concerned I still consider it
a personal choice. However if a person subscribes to
a particular religion and accepts all their tenets that's
their problem.

Kate

--
Kate Connally
“If I were as old as I feel, I’d be dead already.”
Goldfish: “The wholesome snack that smiles back,
Until you bite their heads off.”
What if the hokey pokey really *is* what it's all about?

Kate Connally wrote in message ...
Chicha wrote:

Kate Connally wrote in message ...
Kenneth Leja wrote:

Asian countries like China think it's okay. Koreans think beating a
dog to death will release hormones that will make human eaters
sexually more virile.

Is this okay or is it just Western cultural bias that finds this
custom kinda sick?

I think it's okay if you haven't named them.
You should never eat anything with a name.

Hey, you are finding excuses.
Would you ate pig known to you as number 48/7 :-)
Generally speaking, your suggestion is to never
eat an animal you have personal relations with?
That is not what happens in small farms.

Well, then, I guess that's why I'm not a farmer.

You are lucky.
Small rural farms are known breeding grounds for immorality ;-)

I guess I would have a problem actually *eating*
a pig with a name, but I sure couldn't kill it.

I have a confession to make:
I took part in murder of Boris the boar back in 1983.
Nobody had guts/skills to kill the beast with a knife.
Had somebody shot him into the ear finally.
(One special thing about guns - make killing much easier to commit).
Pork was delicious, anyway.

More confessions to follow.


When I used to spend a lot of time on my grandfather's
family's farm they often killed a chicken for dinner.

Had animals names there? I bet they had.

I would have nothing to do with it - couldn't even
watch! But once it was dead I loved helping to clean
it and as a preteen I was big on science and biology
so used to do experiments while cleaning a chicken like
measuring the length of the intestines. I also would
save the heads in a jar of alcohol and then at a later
time I would dissect them. I loved dissecting eyeballs.

Easy. They scan Internet for serial killers, you know.
I should google for "I loved dissecting eyeballs".

None of this grossed me out. And I loved eating the
chicken, but I was "chicken" to kill one.

Seriously, though, as much as I love dogs and
cats and wouldn't think of eating one, I don't
think it's inherently immoral, any more so than
eat a cow or deer or chicken or pig or fish, etc.
Each person can decide for herself what animals
she considers proper to eat or whether or not it's
proper to eat them at all. It's a person choice.

I think cultural restrictions/acceptions of society are
not less influential at least when choosing 'what not to eat'.
One could be lynched for eating pig in Iran.

I realise that, but I was just talking about what
would be considered moral vs. immoral, not about what
would happened in any particular place if you ate any

I think "particular" is the key word for that matter.
Eating some cat suddenly becames moral during particular time
of WWII to save your child from hunger.(I am not sure about
particular cat still).
In some particular province of China most people (that means
half billion :-) ) loves dog's ribs stewed.

particular animal. You could consider it perfect
moral to eat a pig but refrain if you were in Iran
because you knew what the dominant culture felt about
it. Or you could do it in secret. ;-)

My fault,I should not choose such extreme case.
Let's not speak religion, speak cuisine.Much safer :-)


Anyway, as far as I am concerned I still consider it
a personal choice. However if a person subscribes to

Yes, but within cultural bounds.
Less diversified - more bounds.
BTW, I read somewhere that cuisine is last die national
distinction. Agree? I do.
Say, when last time you were tempted by fried crickets? :-)

a particular religion and accepts all their tenets that's
their problem.

Inshalla.


Kate

Nick (Chicha).

On 26 Nov 2003 09:47:27 -0800, (Chicha) wrote:

Kate Connally wrote in message ...
Chicha wrote:

Kate Connally wrote in message ...
Kenneth Leja wrote:

Asian countries like China think it's okay. Koreans think beating a
dog to death will release hormones that will make human eaters
sexually more virile.

Is this okay or is it just Western cultural bias that finds this
custom kinda sick?

I think it's okay if you haven't named them.
You should never eat anything with a name.

Hey, you are finding excuses.
Would you ate pig known to you as number 48/7 :-)
Generally speaking, your suggestion is to never
eat an animal you have personal relations with?
That is not what happens in small farms.

Well, then, I guess that's why I'm not a farmer.

You are lucky.
Small rural farms are known breeding grounds for immorality ;-)

I guess I would have a problem actually *eating*
a pig with a name, but I sure couldn't kill it.

I have a confession to make:
I took part in murder of Boris the boar back in 1983.
Nobody had guts/skills to kill the beast with a knife.
Had somebody shot him into the ear finally.
(One special thing about guns - make killing much easier to commit).
Pork was delicious, anyway.


Well, killing dogs for food isn't much of a crime, but torturing it
with slow death is BIG time crime. Japan history has a culture of
torture both for sport and study - from Shogun to Unit 731 - and they
include humans! Hope history does not repeat, come future wars.

Why resort to torture? It only brings out the ugly side of a people,
nothing to brag about even if it is for 'scientific research'. Unit
731 put on a stain and stigma on the Japanese, which will take several
more decades to erase. Nothing glorious for sure, whether it is for
the emperor or not.