Chapter 15 the softest place in the soul

The starting point of many things is emotional. You may not be interested in every social issue that has attracted attention. On the one hand, it is a question of ability, and on the other hand, it is a question of personal interest and personality traits. The problem of ability is that I can't actually generate effective force on the issue of global warming, so I just support energy conservation and carbon reduction. I agree with it in action, but I leave it to those who have done a good job in this issue. My personal interest is that I am not interested in rising global food prices, nor in the economic impact of oil futures prices reaching new highs, so I have never mentioned these things on the Internet once.But are those two things unimportant?Important, but I'm not interested in commenting.

I have feelings for dogs, so I am very interested in dog issues, and I hope I have the ability in this area, so I will try to participate in such issues and speak out. In the previous article "Why do you oppose the legalization of eating dogs by Koreans", I made several structured and argumentative deduction, in order to refute the two reasons of "not opposing the legalization of eating dogs by Koreans", this The two reasons are: 1. That is a matter of other countries, so you don't care. 2. That is a cultural difference, you have to know how to respect it. Please note that in the last article, my debate strategy was not about whether the examples cited (Kyoto Protocol, North Korean self-destruct, Iranian rape, African circumcision) had anything to do with "human eat dog", but to counter the above two The large-scale reasons are not valid---in some special cases, we would like to interfere with people and things that were not our business.

But I also readily admit that my feelings for dogs are the purpose of my voice, but also because of this intrinsic value, many people deliberately ignore the above two debate strategies, which makes me feel very bad. Originally, I didn't intend to adopt a debate-level discussion on this matter, but: First, I found that many idlers would "think" on this issue for the sake of debate.Underneath these debated articles, there are often: "There is obviously room for thinking about whether we should oppose the legalization of eating dogs by the Koreans." This seemingly comprehensive, but in fact there is no constructive opinion at all.

------This is the fake intellectual I mentioned before. They have no central idea and no self-worth. They only frown and pretend to be knowledgeable. Second, I am very surprised that people who stand with me against the legalization of dog-eating in South Korea generally lack above-average debating skills.I thought that the discourse in this area was already complete and I didn’t need me, but it seems that it’s not always the case, or the people who have the discourse ability don’t have enough clicks to spread their discourse, so I don’t know you guys What did they say. ------Then, it doesn't matter, I can be the first one.

The following is an article produced purely for the sake of debate. After all, if I didn't love dogs, there wouldn't be the previous article and this one. First of all, there's nothing special about being a vegetarian, it's just your choice. The operation of the natural food chain itself is very complicated. If you think that the way of survival of one creature should not hinder the survival of another creature, so you become a vegetarian, well, that is your choice, nothing more.Because there are many, many, many animals in nature that are busy eating another, or dozens of other animals, purely vegetarian animals, I think, are in the very minority (if not, I accept correction).

Tigers eat sheep, which is also part of nature. Snakes eat mice, and praying mantises catch cicadas, all of which are mechanisms of nature.You have to regulate the tiger, train the tiger to be a vegetarian, and there are innate ingestion and digestive structures that are impossible. Humans are omnivorous animals. I think there is some truth to it, and it may increase our chances of survival. Second, many civilized countries that eat meat have laws that say you can eat it but don't allow animal cruelty. If you take a live chicken upside down and make it into a three-cup chicken, and cause the chicken to suffer, you are breaking the law.

If you shoot blind dingoes with an air gun, it's against the law. If you blind your own dog with an air gun, it's not as bad as it is, and it's still a crime. If you hack a beef cattle to death with a random axe, yes, it was bred to kill, but you're still breaking the law. On the surface, this guarantees the right of animals not to be abused, but in essence, it is a special derivative of human rights. Why?Gan human fart? Because we accept that these animals are killed because they want to be eaten by humans, such as chickens, ducks, fish, pigs and sheep, these animals actually have no legal right to "absolute survival"!For example, if you accidentally hit and killed a stray dog ​​with your car, there is absolutely no law that can accuse you of murdering the dog, because its death is just a misfortune, and you may have to panic.

However, if you deliberately drive over a stray dog, even if it has no owner, you can still face a lawsuit. The conclusion is that most people can't bear some people's cruelty to animals, and think that whether we see it with our own eyes, see it on TV, or read it in the newspaper, we all feel very uncomfortable It's not happy, it sucks, so we legislated with great fanfare to protect the law that animals cannot be abused. Excuse me, do you oppose such a law? If you object, and feel that cruelty to animals has nothing to do with the supreme human rights, it doesn’t matter if you abuse them (an animal father: "Sue me for sexual assault? What kind of sexual assault is it if I fuck my own daughter!" is almost equal to the animal owner: "Sue me for dog cruelty? I cut off the penis of my own dog, what kind of animal cruelty!"), um, then there is no discussion between us, even if you win, you are inhuman anyway!

If you agree with such a law as I do, then we all have the most basic human nature. Whether you accept my claim that "this law is actually a special derivative of human rights", we can continue to discuss. Many people are curious, if the dogs are not brutally hanged up by the Koreans, cut their throats, killed and eaten (this is the information we got), but are well bred in large numbers, and then given a hearty electrocution, is it right? In line with human nature, and then you can eat? I think at this time, many people should be shaken. "The knife is big! I think it can be eaten like this!" You feel that something is wrong, but you still can't help but say.

Okay, don't worry, leave this kind of scene to me. We can eat pigs slaughtered by electricity, but the older generation of our ancestors, no matter how the cattle were slaughtered a long time ago, they just couldn't eat cattle. Why?Needless to say, you also know, because cattle are our good partners in the agricultural society! Out of the sincerity of country people, our ancestors could not persuade themselves to eat cattle. Even if they had to sell cattle to rich people because of poverty, we can still know from many folk stories that those farmers who sold cattle They were all crying, as painful as if they wanted to send their family members to be slaughtered alive.

So far, even though many farmers have used machinery to replace cattle, they still do not have the habit of eating cattle. Of course, I would not use this analogy to dogs as an important strategy in the debate, but it cannot be ignored, that is, "Under special circumstances, it is not very unusual or strange for humans to show loyalty to animals." thing". I forgot where I saw a sentence, vaguely on the National Geographic Channel, it seems to say: "The reason why human beings are the spirit of all things is because human beings have the ability to protect all animals." That sentence does not mean that human beings should not eat meat, Instead, in the face of the ecological catastrophe caused by global warming, human beings have the responsibility and should make efforts to fight against the melting of Arctic ice. That sentence touched me very much. For the first time, I think human beings are kind of... amazing. Writers can use many languages ​​to tell you what is the key characteristic of human beings that make them different from other animals. No matter how much I talk about it, in fact, many animals have more or less the characteristics that humans have, such as being able to apologize, know how to be ashamed, know how to reflect, know how to show loyalty, know how to betray, and know how to be filial. After all, it’s just that humans are smarter. Humans will show loyalty to animals, but you and I both know that animals often show loyalty to humans, and even know what loyalty is better than humans.There are too many examples, and animal news often sees dogs saving people and people saving dogs.Horses help people, people help horses.People raise ghosts, and ghosts repay favors (hey!). The history of co-existence and mutual assistance between dogs and humans, any anthropologist will tell you, happened long before civilization began.Just google and find this article: http://.sciscape.org/news_detail.php?news_id=884 The detailed time is a mystery, but humans domesticated dogs very early, and it is almost a scientific fact that dogs are used to perform various dangerous tasks such as scouting, attacking, guarding, hunting, and tracking. To this day, dogs still perform many jobs in human society. Drug dogs, help us fight against evil drug dealers. It is also one of the tasks of military dogs to use their bodies to go deep into mine-ridden areas to find danger. Sled dogs run as usual in all kinds of strange terrains in the mountains. In addition to defecating more, there is no carbon pollution! Therapy dogs play with the elderly with dementia, autistic children, and children who have been ill for a long time in the hospital, helping them enhance their self-confidence in interpersonal interactions and relieve loneliness. Guide dogs, almost irreplaceable loyal guys, must be strictly trained to resist all kinds of temptations on the street and help their owners reach their destination safely, even if they are injured along the way, they still don’t change their expressions. The watchdog has helped countless private factories, households, and killer families to guard against thieves, robbers and boring people. How many watchdogs in the countryside were poisoned and killed by thieves who could not succeed! Doomsday dog, this is the extreme of standard ideology. Ideology often reflects the emotional needs of human beings. In the lonely doomsday, we still want to have a dog to accompany us. The most are domestic dogs (the fat Krumi looks very delicious). There are a very large number of people who raise puppies to accompany them to fight against loneliness (how many modern couples do not plan to have children, but raise dogs), many parents raise dogs to teach children what life education is, and many people adopt stray dogs because of sympathy attacks to prevent them from being euthanized.There are also many people who were given dogs for no reason, so they kept raising them foolishly. Dogs are not only closely integrated with humans in terms of work and tasks, but also become special partners of humans emotionally.Never before in history has an animal been "allied" with humans as much as dogs. In terms of function, humans certainly will not kill and eat police dogs, military dogs, sled dogs, and guard dogs, but humans should probably work hard to serve humans because there are so many dogs (the reward is only eating and sleeping, Occasionally hug it, say it is good), love the house and the crow, let their companions have the "immunity" not to be killed and eaten.In human mythology, similar "contracts" can occasionally be seen.The "exchange" in anthropology also has a certain degree of similarity. This is from righteousness.You can disagree, but this is what I think with many people. Emotionally, I think it is a human right not to want dogs to be eaten since there are so many people who love dogs, or because there are many people out of irrational sympathy (but this irrationality is not offensive). special derivation of .So pay attention, this is also a human rights issue! This is from human nature.You can disagree, but this is what I think with many people. Tell a little story. A seven-year-old girl and her mother took a flight to South Korea. When she was clearing customs at Seoul Airport, the little girl saw a drug-sniffing dog sniffing around on the luggage lane. The little girl couldn't help asking: "Mom, what is that dog doing?" Mom said: "The dog is smelling, smelling whether there are bad people hiding bad things in the luggage!" In an airport coffee shop, a guide dog leads a blind man to the counter. The little girl who was eating the cake felt that it was very novel, and squatted down to tease the guide dog with the biscuit in her hand. Mom hurriedly stopped: "You can't play with the guide dog, it will distract it, and you won't be able to walk with the blind uncle properly!" The little girl quickly retracted her hand. Suddenly, someone in the distance shouted: "There are pickpockets!" The crowd became restless in an instant, and a thief who ran away almost rushed out of the airport gate. The police whistle sounded, and a low black shadow rushed out like a cannonball, and immediately threw down the successful pickpocket. The crowd applauded and whistled at a black German shepherd. "Mom! That dog is so powerful!" the girl exclaimed. "That's a police dog, you have to salute when you see it." The mother gently patted the little girl's head. Took a taxi to leave the airport and arrived in downtown Seoul. At the traffic light, the car stopped beside the zebra crossing, and the little girl suddenly saw a dog meat shop next to it. The shocking picture signboard, the little girl asked innocently: "Mom, what is that?" Mom didn't notice it for a while, and blurted out: "That's a dog meat seller." The little girl froze. Mom was also stunned. "Mom, why do dogs help us so much, and we still eat dogs?" the little girl asked timidly. If it is you, how to answer? How are you going to tell your next generation that humans can easily betray the allies who are speaking to them? It's almost the end, you ask me why dogs alone can do so much work? A dog’s nose is not the sharpest, a dog’s feet are not as fast as a leopard’s, a dog’s swimming ability is not as good as a dolphin’s stick, a dog’s strength is not as strong as an orangutan’s, and a dog’s wisdom is not as good as a monkey’s. So why a dog?Just google and find this article: http://.sciscape.org/news_detail.php?news_id=1121 Of course, many animals, such as horses, also perform some functional jobs in the human world. If you think that people should not eat horses, well, I agree with you, let’s not eat horses together. If you further slap the table and yell, if everyone starts training pigs to replace dogs for work, or even partnership with people, will everyone stop eating pigs in the future? !Well, I can also readily agree with you, let's not eat pigs together, it's as simple as that. Now that this debate is almost over, let's move on to the issue of appeals. Usually appeals are accompanied by "counter-action" actions, and this counter-action is often closely related to whether your appeals can be achieved. Sometimes the counteraction you propose is so drastic that it forces the other person to change their behavior. But sometimes it's unfortunately the opposite. For example, South Korea asked North Korea to stop the research and development of nuclear weapons. This is a demand, and South Korea's countermeasures to threaten North Korea are to stop aid to North Korea.Because North Korea is very unhappy with this countermeasure, the appeal made by South Korea is basically counterproductive—North Korea intensified its large-scale military exercises. Today, we took the initiative of writing a letter to South Korean Prime Minister Lee Myung-bak, asking him not to legalize dog-eating and to do our part for the partners we want to protect. May I ask --- what countermeasures did we propose? What countermeasures did we come up with to make South Koreans feel like we were oppressing them? Have we ever urged everyone not to buy Korean products? Have we ever called for a boycott of Korean entertainers? Have we ever burned Korean flags in the streets? Have we asked Yang Jianbok to throw touchdowns against Korean hitters in the Olympics? No. nothing. We are just protesting at the top of our lungs!We respond to one letter per person! We publicly accuse Koreans of being immoral, uncivilized, and cruel. This level of opposition is similar to verbal violence at first glance, but it is not the same thing at all.Do I want to say: "I don't think it's good for you to eat dog meat, can you stop eating it? Please!"... What a bitch, what the hell. Absolutely, this is the lowest level of protest, almost like an expression of opinion, an expression of emotion. Everyone should have his core values, I don't want to emulate the fake intellectuals who make a living by sneering, veganism as the highest guiding principle, and refuting other people's opinions for fun.He even has a dog too. For fake intellectuals, saying something that sounds plausible is more important than what they believe. For fake intellectuals, popularity numbers on blogs are more important than what they believe. To the pseudo-intellectuals, eating dog or not eating dog is a debate that matters more than what they believe. So we can see countless fake intellectuals shouting with tears in their eyes: "Although I don't agree with you eating dogs, I will defend to the death your right to eat dogs!" Sorry, I'm an activist when it comes to things I care about. If what you want is a debate, I have it for you. It's done. In the end, regardless of the reason, human beings keep pets based on selfish desires. No matter what kind of desires they come from, it is a kind of cruelty in a sense, because it seems normal for animals to live in nature, no matter you What exactly are the things that are raised. I largely agree with this view. I can even stop keeping dogs, and I can start a petition asking everyone to stop keeping pets. But I have to say very sincerely that the most valuable place in my soul is because of the puma that has been raised for fourteen years. For a long time, faced with a hypothetical question: "If you could take a ride in a time machine, at what point in your life would you go back and do it all over again?" I shrugged my shoulders and said proudly: "No, even if I miss something or regret something, I can afford it." But two years ago, I finally had a new answer. If I could take a time machine and do it all over again, I would go back to the dying puma. I have promised it countless times, I will close its eyes with my own hands, so that it will not be lonely. I don't. I was in pain all the time. I wasn't born to fight, I was cowardly, and running away was often my first option. But not this time. ------- ps: Some people just can’t read the article well, so they have to summarize the above. The argument can be summed up as: Dogs are used for a long time and in a large number of multiple tools. If dogs are eaten, it will hinder our life education for the next generation. Not eating dogs is also a human right (special derivation) where such human rights have pre-existing legislation (emphasis) We are also willing to take the position of banning food for a large number of other animals that assist human society. We have not oppressed Koreans, because this appeal has not been countered. This is a minimum expression of opinion. This article is different from the previous article. This article There is a complete discussion, don't just frame me just because my last paragraph is emotional. This is an "emotional essay"