Dog-meat eating has become a controversial issue concerning animal welfare. Countries which are known for dog-meat eating are China, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia and the Philippines – mostly Asian countries. China, being one of the most controversial countries had recently celebrated a dog-meat eating festival called the YuLin Festival whereas about 10,000 dogs were slaughtered for meat (Liu, 2015). Their dog-meat eating festival is greatly linked to regional cultural traditions whereas the taste and tradition (Bacon, nd) is considered. In “traditional Chinese medicine, dog is a "heating" meat which can offer a useful energy boost in midwinter, but is best avoided after the lunar new year (Liu, 2015)”. In Bacon’s (nd) study, it is also stated …show more content…
According to Lacbawan (2014) “the practice is treated as a sacred component of ritual that has spiraled into a national symbol of Filipino culture”. It is true that the Filipinos, especially those in the Northern region, are known for this dog-meat eating tradition where more popularly, many Filipinos call this dog-meat dish as Asocena. In the Cordilleras, the Igorots are known to use dogs as sacrificial items. An example used by Lacbawan (2014: 44) was how the Igorots see their dogs having an intimate bond between them – “The bond is reinforced in ceremonial rites in which the dog is requested to look after his master, just like how he accompanies him to tend his rice paddies or guard his house at night. In the dao-es, the dog is treated as carrier or guardian of the human (his master’s) soul. Although a dead person cannot physically return to life to avenge his death, rituals can provoke his soul to hurt the person who bewitched him, until he (offender) suffers and dies.” (Lacbawan, 2014; 43). The dogs are also believed to have ‘warm’ blood which makes them brave and fearless (Lacbawan, 2014: 43). The dog then becomes an important item in the conduction of their different rituals. Despite the fact that these dogs are treated sacred and important, some still see dog-meat eating as an immoral activity. This is influenced especially by the growing market trade (whereas 200,000 dogs are slaughtered to supply for restaurant’s demands and private consumer therefore taking away the sanctity of the animal itself (Lacbawan, 2014)) and modern thinking of values and animal welfare whereas some people fight for the rights of the animals being eaten and imply that they, too, should also be ‘humanely’ treated. This, therefore becomes a battle between legal animal rights and the expression of cultural rights – whether we should consider the ethics behind eating domesticated pets or consider the
In the articles “An Animals Place,” by Michael Pollan, and “The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals,” by Blake Hurst, the controversial methods of farming in today’s society are examined. Modern farming methods are a relevant topic of discussion because the foods that people consume have a direct impact on their health, therefore they should be aware of the procedures that farming methods employ. Pollan and Hurst have differing beliefs on farming methods, but similar interests in the environment, people, and animals. In the article “An Animals Place,” the author, Michael Pollan sheds light on the barbaric institution of American meat-packing.
In An Animal’s Place, Michael Pollan describes the growing acknowledgement of animal rights, particularly America’s decision between vegetarianism and meat-eating. However, this growing sense of sentiment towards animals is coupled with a growing sense of brutality in farms and science labs. According to Pollan, the lacking respect for specific species of animals lies in the fact that they are absent from human’s everyday lives; enabling them to avoid acknowledgment of what they are doing when partaking in brutality towards animals. He presents arguments for why vegetarianism would make sense in certain instances and why it would not and ultimately lead to the decision of eating-meat while treating the animals fairly in the process. Pollan
I believe the Late Carrie Fisher summed it up best when she said. "There is so much animal suffering in the world, and much of it, you feel helpless to end, but stopping the Yulin dog meat festival and ending all that suffering is easy. Chinese authorities need to do is declare it shut down, and the killing stops. " I would have expected a simple minded lightweight like Marc Ching to compare dog-meat eating to that of ending slavery. For Susan Abram 's and the LA Daily News to include his ignorance into their article is
To build his credibility the author uses evidence such as; “The French, who love their dogs, sometimes eat their horses. The Spanish, who love their horses, sometimes eat their cows. The Indians, who love their cows, sometimes eat their dogs” (Foer, par 3). This piece of evidence starts by showing the authors credibility because it proves that he has studied other cultures and their everyday lives as well as their own animal taboos. Another piece of evidence that presents the author with credibility is when he mentions, “Perhaps we could include dogs under the Human Methods of Slaughter Act” (Foer, Par. 12).
In other countries people do not hesitate to eat a dog or a horse however we do not eat those here because we have emotional connections to these animals. In India, for example, they eat their dogs but would never even dream of eating their cows; we are the exact opposite. Foer poses the question: if our neighbors do not own pets, would we even be able to be offended if they ate a dog for dinner? It really makes you think. Next, he asks us, why do we stray away from eating a severely impaired human, but not a pig with potentially more brain capacity than said human?
Animal rights and livestock farming Many of us, nowadays, eat and enjoy eating meat but many would agree that this is actually not an ethical action. Michael Pollan, in his persuasive style article “An Animal's Place" published in The New Work Times Magazine, on November 10, 2002 intends to persuade his audience that humans should respect animals and as long as they are treated well in farms and give them a more peaceful life and death it will be fine to eat them. According to Pollan, in today's huge industrial farms, cruel and unbearable things happen that are against animals rights. There is a high possibility that in the future these actions will stop as already some protest for animal rights have begun, because animals have feelings and farms take advantage of them thinking that they are mere machines, making them suffer. The solution to this conflict according to the author who supports friendly farms that respect and give a fun and secure life for animals.
Good nutrition is a significant part of a healthy lifestyle and is a principle being taught every day around the world. The dilemma of hunger is faced by many countries; according to the World Food Programme, “795 million people in the world do not have enough food to lead a healthy active lifestyle” (“Hunger”). In Johnathan Safran Foer’s article, “Let Them Eat Dog,” published in the Wall Street Journal, he argues the ridiculous nature of the American cultural taboo of restricting society from the consumption of dogs for food. Foer begins the article first by talking about the reluctances of the consumption of dogs regardless of it being legal in the majority of states within the United States (Foer 689). He then discusses the positive effects of the removal of the taboo of the consumption of dogs such as the solution for hunger in the world and the depletion of natural resources.
Thesis There is a growing consent that factory farming of animals or concentrated animal feeding operations is morally
In fact, within this claim he mentions dogs in a way that forces the reader to reflect on the claims he made about dogs earlier within the piece. Foer argues for the consumption of dog in a logical way in order to draw attention to a bigger issue: the treatment of animals in factory-farmed meat. While Foer might still be pro-eating dog, his entire argument that he presents throughout the essay is, essentially, a different perspective on the issue of factory-farmed meat. He relates this issue to the audience by bringing up a controversial topic, and while he may not convince his audience to eat dog, he at the very least shows that, logically, eating dog could make sense. Once he has made his point clear, he points to hypothetical situations of how dogs would be humanely prepared if they were to be eaten by stating, “we can all agree that if we’re going to eat them, we should kill them quickly and painlessly” (605).
In the article “Let Them Eat Dog”, Jonathan Safran Foer addresses the taboo subject of humans using dogs as a form of protein and sustenance. He analyzes the intelligence of our canine companions in comparison to the species most Americans would believe to be acceptable to consume, such as: pigs, cows, and chickens. While their intelligence is relatively similar, even the most devoted of carnivores still wouldn’t consider dog as a meal option. “Despite the fact that it’s legal in 44 states” (Foer para 1), poses no additional health risks than any other meat, and tastes just as good, American people still refuse to cook the family dog. Foer goes on to mention how millions of dogs, as well as cats, are euthanized every year just in the United
If you traveled to another country where the main course was a cocker spaniel, would you be so inclined as to try the meal; if so, would you then be comfortable admitting it was enjoyable? Most Americans would answer no, and with an astounded look on their face for such a crude question being asked. Author Jonathan Safran Foer pushed his audience’s emotional boundaries by proposing the idea that we do just that; eat our precious dogs. His argument within the article “Let Them Eat Dog: A Modest Proposal for Tossing Fido in the Oven” proves strong with what seems to be an unbiased, logical, and tryingly reasonable argument! Throughout this paper is a close analysis of Mr. Foer’s true argument, his tactics, and his personal style of writing.
An Argumentative Essay: For or against the consumption of Shark’s Fin Soup and why? Chinese New Year is just around the corner, and this stretch around mid-February always ignites a fresh wave of demand for an exotic delicacy, typically served during Chinese New Year Eve dinners – Shark’s Fin Soup. The dish should be boycotted for the cruelty that goes into the obtainment of the ingredients, our reluctance to save the sharks, our indifference towards the plight of the world’s oceans, concerns about the roots of a culture being tied to this dish and the health threats that the thick, cholesterol-laden soup presents all make it less than appealing, though most of the consumers are blind to such facts. It is, indeed, a pressing issue that had not been given much media coverage, and this delicacy should be boycotted for the reasons further elaborated upon below.
In today’s world, there is a division among the people in the world regarding whether or not it is ethical to eat meat. After researching about eating meat and vegetarianism, I have come to the conclusion that it is indeed ethical to eat meat in today’s society. Sure, eating meat might have its drawbacks, but I have found that the benefits of eating meat far outweigh the negatives of eating it. Eating meat not only helps improve people’s health, but it also helps strengthen our economy and it has little difference in the environmental impact that involves in the farming of vegetables. Eating too much of anything usually results in a negative outcome.
The meat packing industry disregards animal’s emotions and their rights all together by the malicious treatment of animals. The way animals are being treated is highly unfair. Being slaughtered for their body parts and suffering just to be used for protein or an asset to humans is unbearable. An animal’s life is at equal values to a human and deserve the same rights as
These acting are a bad behavior and cruelty. The important thing is human who killed those animals. There are many positive aspects about killing animal but there are also some negative aspects. Thus this essay discusses both side of issue.