How Popular Are Dogs... on a menu? [Archive] - Straight Dope Message Board

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 05:21 AM

I've no idea how many dogs are eaten in the world, but I'm confused with your line of reasoning.

My WAG is that where people eat dogs, dogs are viewed as food and not companions. You're asking the question like they would care what other cultures think of their eating habits. To bring up another old parallel, why do we eat cows? It's an animal that is so highly valued and appreciated - and not for its meat content - elsewhere in the world (India).

So, by your reasoning, if in some remote part of the world, cannibalising your fellow villagers, once they'd died, was the accepted norm, you'd be perfectly okay with it?
The place you mention that respects cows, does it for a rather silly reason, and not because the cow has any other value than what use it can be put to. I don't think many Indians have cows as companions do they? And these people who don't view dogs as companions.... do they not have any conception of having a pet, then? Why?

Walpurgis

08-03-2008, 05:27 AM

Where did cannibalism come into it? I was talking about animals. By my reasoning, animals have different roles in different parts of the world. Therefore you can't put a general standard on which are pets and which are food. The answers will be different depending on where you go. Just because one people don't normally have dogs as pets or companions, it doesn't mean they don't keep pets at all.

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 05:31 AM

Because cannibalism is an extreme eating habit. People who view their pets as extended members of their family , might easily view the eating of Fido as akin to cannibalism.

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 05:36 AM

Can I suggest that anyone who eats dog is a primitive, or are there any Straightdope dog eaters around to suggest otherwise?

Walpurgis

08-03-2008, 05:39 AM

I see what you mean. But that doesn't change the fact that one culture's norms doesn't necessarily make sense to another. There will always be practices and habits that will be found disgusting or extreme depending on where you come from. "Right" and "wrong" are subjective values.

Koxinga

08-03-2008, 05:43 AM

Why shouldn't they be? Pigs make great companions too, and are good eatin' nonetheless.

And there are still quite a few dog eaters in China, Korea and (I believe) Vietnam.

ETA: And a question for you, ivan. Would you ever eat horse meat? What do you think of people who do?

Argent Towers

08-03-2008, 05:46 AM

Can I suggest that anyone who eats dog is a primitive, or are there any Straightdope dog eaters around to suggest otherwise?

No, you can't. That's bullshit. Someone can't be a primitive based solely on what he eats. My girlfriend once ate dog while visiting her family in the Philippines. It was a very rural part of the country, but not "primitive" by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, if you're living in a hut in the woods, eating animals that you've clubbed to death with your own hands, and attacking anyone who comes near your property with a spear, then you're a primitive. If you're adhering to a system of beliefs that subjugates women and oppresses minorities and stones people to death, you're a primitive even if if it's a relatively modern country in terms of technology.

But you can't be a primitive just for eating a certain kind of meat.

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 05:50 AM

Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party

08-03-2008, 05:50 AM

I'd eat dog in a heartbeat, just to see what it tasted like. Same with horse.

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 05:59 AM

I might have known the meat eaters would soon be along, brandishing their clubs! :D

Koxinga; I wouldn't eat a horse myself, although I've used the expression often enough. Horses seem as dumb as sheep and cows anyway, so it doesn't bother me as much as dogs.

Argent; There's a difference between eating something out of curiosity or because you are starving on the odd occasion. If you ate a forest diet and lived your life around gathering that food, you soon would be nigh on a primitive!

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 06:07 AM

I'd eat dog in a heartbeat, just to see what it tasted like. Same with horse.

Try and confine yourself to Edinburgh, they might be able to tolerate your eating habits up there, but Wigan's a bit close to me and my dog, for my liking! :p

Walpurgis

08-03-2008, 06:11 AM

But can we say it's ignorance that leads them to make these decisions? How far should we respect another's culture, if they don't respect what we respect? I know if I'd been born 'there' as opposed to 'here', I wouldn't be having these thoughts, but why would I not be able to view a dog with a Western, or non dog eating perspective? I could almost understand it, if they ate dogs out of necessity, but that is not the case, is it?

Why are you not able to view a dog with a dog-eating perspective? If you can't, then how can you ask the reverse from someone who views dogs as food?

Edit: My point here is that you take for granted that your own worldview is the "natural", "correct" and "civilized" one. So does everyone else (with theirs). Why is yours the right one?

Švejk

08-03-2008, 06:24 AM

I don't see the difference between dogs and other animals that would make a dog unfit for eating. Dogs are smart?* So are pigs. I say, if its nutritious, by all means eat it. If you want to hang out with it, by all means hang out with it. Just that an animal serves one purpose (company, or pulling carts or plows or chasing foxes or herding sheep) doesn't mean it can't serve another, such as being food. In the end, the character of an animal, whether its dirty or maybe even has personality, is no criterion to decide whether to eat it or not. Taste and nutritional value are.

But can we say it's ignorance that leads them to make these decisions? How far should we respect another's culture, if they don't respect what we respect?

I don't see how on earth dog eating could be brought on by ignorance, as you argue, and how it could be construed as disrespectful of our culture. Do you really think people should change their diets around out of respect to you and your mutt. Do you think that people who are Jewish, Muslim or Hindu generally think its disrespectful of you to eat pork or beef? Would you agree with them if they did think it was disrespectful?

*actually, I've known some pretty stupid dogs

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 06:31 AM

Why are you not able to view a dog with a dog-eating perspective? If you can't, then how can you ask the reverse from someone who views dogs as food?
Edit: My point here is that you take for granted that your own worldview is the "natural", "correct" and "civilized" one. So does everyone else (with theirs). Why is yours the right one?
I am a victim of circumstance, like everyone else, I suppose. I only began eating meat because my parents were not vegetarians, vegans or whatever. The older I get, the less I enjoy it, but I do still eat meat. Does this disallow me having concerns about what others eat and enjoy?

Walpurgis

08-03-2008, 06:38 AM

I am a victim of circumstance, like everyone else, I suppose. I only began eating meat because my parents were not vegetarians, vegans or whatever. The older I get, the less I enjoy it, but I do still eat meat. Does this disallow me having concerns about what others eat and enjoy?

You're allowed to have concerns about anything and everything, just like everyone else. And when you state them here, I have the right to question them and offer my own viewpoint. That's what debating is, yeah?

Švejk

08-03-2008, 06:38 AM

I am a victim of circumstance, like everyone else, I suppose. I only began eating meat because my parents were not vegetarians, vegans or whatever. The older I get, the less I enjoy it, but I do still eat meat. Does this disallow me having concerns about what others eat and enjoy?

Your argument has nothing to do with vegetarianism - it is not directed at eating meat per se, just at eating dogs. In my view, the fact that you eat meat does not disallow you from being critical of what others eat. It just makes you a hypocrite.

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 06:46 AM

Your argument has nothing to do with vegetarianism - it is not directed at eating meat per se, just at eating dogs. In my view, the fact that you eat meat does not disallow you from being critical of what others eat. It just makes you a hypocrite.

Thanks...I knew there was a word for it.

Let's argue numbers then. I'd venture there are far more non dog eaters, who would back me up that eating dog is not necessary to survive, than there are dog eaters who would argue their "right" to continue eating them. Are we all just sentimental fools, or do dogs deserve a more protected place in this world?

typo corrected

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 06:59 AM

I don't see how on earth dog eating could be brought on by ignorance, as you argue, and how it could be construed as disrespectful of our culture.
Ignorance of how 'the vast majority of the planet' perceives them, maybe?

Do you really think people should change their diets around out of respect to you and your mutt. Do you think that people who are Jewish, Muslim or Hindu generally think its disrespectful of you to eat pork or beef? Would you agree with them if they did think it was disrespectful?
Let's not bring religious views into the debate!

*actually, I've known some pretty stupid dogs

I own one...but it doesn't make him less lovable! :)

Švejk

08-03-2008, 07:06 AM

Let's argue numbers then. I'd venture there are far more non dog eaters, who would back me up that eating dog is not necessary to survive, than there are dog eaters who would argue their "right" to continue eating them. Are we all just sentimental fools, or do dogs deserve a more protected place in this world?

Just sentimental fools. Dogs don't deserve anything that cows or pigs or horses don't. Numbers have nothing to do with this entire debate. Lots of people in Asia think it's disgusting we let milk rot and rot and then eat it. I, however, like cheese ... I've also tried snails, and liked them. No matter how many people think what I eat is disgusting, or even immoral, I'll eat it if I want to.

Let's not bring religious views into the debate!

Why the hell not? Why are your reasons for eating what you do and not eating what you don't valid and someone else's equally idiosyncratic but religiously inspired reasons for eating or not eating things out of the debate?

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 07:19 AM

Just sentimental fools. Dogs don't deserve anything that cows or pigs or horses don't. Numbers have nothing to do with this entire debate. Lots of people in Asia think it's disgusting we let milk rot and rot and then eat it. I, however, like cheese ... I've also tried snails, and liked them. No matter how many people think what I eat is disgusting, or even immoral, I'll eat it if I want to.
No you wouldn't. If everyone around you began treating you abhorrently because of what you ate, your attitude would eventually change.

Why the hell not? Why are your reasons for eating what you do and not eating what you don't valid and someone else's equally idiosyncratic but religiously inspired reasons for eating or not eating things out of the debate?

Because my views are based on the Real World, and not supernatural mumbo-jumbo.

HazelNutCoffee

08-03-2008, 07:26 AM

I think the OP is confusing his dog with all dogs in general.

If eating dog constituted eating the dog you bought as a puppy and brought up for years to be a companion to your family, then yes, I would consider that . . . maybe not primitive, but certainly heartless. However, it doesn't. Eating dog means you eat a dog. Not your dog, not anyone's dog. The dog was not a pet. It was brought up like a pig or a cow: like livestock. The only reason you, the OP, think this is primitive is because you were conditioned to think that way. We here on the other side of the world respect that, and as such we do not demand that eating dog be made legal in your part of the world. We would appreciate it if you do the same and leave us in peace to eat whatever the hell we want.

For the record, my emotional response to eating dog is disgust. This is because I was brought up in the US, where dogs have the distinction of being "man's best friend." But I have no problems with other people eating dogs at all, and it really annoys me when people take their own cultural norms as some kind of absolute standard by which everyone else should be judged.

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 07:29 AM

I've still not heard any sort of argument that makes dog a logical nutritional choice.

p.s. And what about the practice of beating the animals whilst alive, to 'tenderise' the flesh? Is this perfectly acceptable too, seeing as they are not pets?

Švejk

08-03-2008, 07:39 AM

And what about the practice of beating the animals whilst alive, to 'tenderise' the flesh? Is this perfectly acceptable too, seeing as they are not pets?

It's as acceptable in dogs as it is in other animals.

HazelNutCoffee

08-03-2008, 07:43 AM

I've still not heard any sort of argument that makes dog a logical nutritional choice.
Since when have humans eaten only food based on what is "logically nutritious"? Why do people eat snails or frog legs or grasshoppers? The only reason you have your panties in a twist about dogs is because you think they are somehow superior to other animals. Which is fine, except you seem to be unable to grasp the fact that the reason you think so isn't based on logic. It's as arbitrary as any other animal eating taboo.

p.s. And what about the practice of beating the animals whilst alive, to 'tenderise' the flesh? Is this perfectly acceptable too, seeing as they are not pets?
Animal rights is a different matter altogether. You think cows and chickens are treated with any kind of dignity as they're being fattened up for slaughter? Are you morally opposed to foie gras?

Argent Towers

08-03-2008, 07:48 AM

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 07:55 AM

Since when have humans eaten only food based on what is "logically nutritious"? Why do people eat snails or frog legs or grasshoppers? The only reason you have your panties in a twist about dogs is because you think they are somehow superior to other animals. Which is fine, except you seem to be unable to grasp the fact that the reason you think so isn't based on logic. It's as arbitrary as any other animal eating taboo.
Okay, what about a 'natural' choice then? Are these dogs merely being chosen because they are so trusting of humans in the first place, and are therefore easy to rear? Obviously none of these people who are eating them have ever watched Lassie?

Animal rights is a different matter altogether. You think cows and chickens are treated with any kind of dignity as they're being fattened up for slaughter? Are you morally opposed to foie gras?

I suppose I'm opposed to any 'creative fiddling' with meat. Kill it and cook it... anything else is a little perverse!

HazelNutCoffee

08-03-2008, 08:13 AM

Okay, what about a 'natural' choice then? Are these dogs merely being chosen because they are so trusting of humans in the first place, and are therefore easy to rear? Obviously none of these people who are eating them have ever watched Lassie?
Listen to yourself. You are scrambling for a different excuse with every post.

People eat dogs because the dogs are there, and they are meat. There is no real reason beyond this. And again, you are taking the word "natural" for granted. There are very few things that are universally natural for people of all cultures. And Lassie isn't one of them.

Why is it so hard to admit that your aversion to eating dog is simply a cultural bias on your part?

I suppose I'm opposed to any 'creative fiddling' with meat. Kill it and cook it... anything else is a little perverse!
I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but unless you hunt, kill, and cook your own meat, the meat on your table goes through a lot more than simply being killed and cooked. Cows, chickens, and pigs are not simply allowed to roam free until the day they are dispatched with a swift ax to the neck (unless you buy free-range meat, I suppose). They are crowded into small spaces and live pretty miserable lives, and they have been bred into creatures that suit our human needs best, which sounds pretty perverse to me. And yet you obviously eat this meat without turning a hair.

Just to make things clear, I'm not a vegetarian. I love meat. I think the way livestock is treated sucks, but a lot of things in life suck, and frankly I don't feel strongly enough about it to do anything.

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 08:21 AM

Agreed.

ivan astikov you are clutching at straws here. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at - and I'm not one of those people who is obsessed with the idea of cultural relativism and all that - but really, you're just going to have to realize that different folks eat different animals, and that's just all there is to it.

Well, I can safely say that I didn't start the thread to get lessons in morality off meat eaters. I was more interested in learning a bit about it's prevalence and popularity, and some of the social history behind the practice.

Argent Towers

08-03-2008, 08:29 AM

And your questions were answered, and then you started talking about this "primitive" stuff and that's where it turned into this wreck.

Švejk

08-03-2008, 08:30 AM

I was more interested in learning a bit about it's prevalence and popularity, and some of the social history behind the practice.

If that was true we'd be in GQ and not in IMHO. Most of what this thread has been about is you passing judgment on people with other eating habits than yours, with increasingly silly lines of reasoning to support why you're right and they're wrong, and with very little ignorance being fought.

Gary T

08-03-2008, 08:33 AM

Well, I can safely say that I didn't start the thread to get lessons in morality off meat eaters.Rather to give lessons in morality to meat eaters, then?

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 08:35 AM

Okay, I get it. I'm just an ignorant Westerner with no ability to conceive how Other People eat stuff that I don't. Let's forget about it.

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 08:37 AM

Rather to give lessons in morality to meat eaters, then?

Yes. I'm trying to de-savage you all.

HazelNutCoffee

08-03-2008, 08:58 AM

Well, I can safely say that I didn't start the thread to get lessons in morality off meat eaters. I was more interested in learning a bit about it's prevalence and popularity, and some of the social history behind the practice.
You'd already made up your mind that it was a primitive practice. If you'd asked the question in a more neutral manner, you would have received answers in kind.

Having a pet is a luxury. It means you have the means to take care of another creature when said creature gives you nothing practical in return. Furthermore, the idea of domesticating an animal purely so it can be a human companion is, as far as I know, a pretty Western idea. I can only speak in terms of Korea, but we didn't open our doors to the West until the 19th century, and we didn't enjoy anything close to economic stability until the latter half of the 20th. Even now, we have a bunch of people crowded like sardines into a very small area - namely, Seoul. Most people in this city will never live in a house with a yard. So owning a dog is not as easily done here as it would be in the US. The concept of dog as pet is now a common one here, but it's not as embraced as it is in the States.

This isn't to say that eating dog is an everyday practice. Plenty of Koreans go through life never having touched the stuff. But most of us, even those of us with pet dogs, don't really bat an eyelash at the idea, because we are able to seperate the idea of my pet dog from that dog in the stew. The dog in the stew and I do not share a relationship. As far as I'm concerned, that dog in the stew is no different from that cow in my hamburger.

You might also just want to read the wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_dog

Czarcasm

08-03-2008, 09:06 AM

If you wish to attack those who through choice or necessity eat dog, you may do so in The BBQ Pit.
Moving thread from IMHO to TBBQP

HazelNutCoffee

08-03-2008, 09:06 AM

Mmm, roasted dog.

DianaG

08-03-2008, 09:17 AM

Now that we're in the Pit, you're being retarded. There is nothing special about dogs. Your personal fondness for them does not render them off-limits to the world's carnivores.

Švejk

08-03-2008, 09:17 AM

Most people in the west have no problem whatsoever in making the distinction between pets and grub. Many people keep pet bunny rabbits, yet eating rabbit is not uncontroversial practice.

Argent Towers

08-03-2008, 09:21 AM

Even the Mongolians, and Russians, and other Slavic and Central Asian groups, eat horsemeat with great pleasure, despite having a tradition of military horsemanship going back hundreds and hundreds of years with the best cavalry units and horse-breeders in the world, and men trusting their very lives to the horses they rode into battle. And even these people never had any problem with eating horse.

even sven

08-03-2008, 09:23 AM

Some areas really do not have many sources of protein. Dog was an occasional specialty in some parts of Cameroon. These were also the parts that were too dense of rain forest to raise livestock successfully. People have dogs around for other reasons (mostly protection, never for companionship) and now and then the dog population starts looking a little high and people's stomachs a little empty.

I wager that is how a lot of dog-eating cultures got started, and now it has simply become tradition.

3acresandatruck

08-03-2008, 09:25 AM

If you wish to attack those who through choice or necessity eat dog, you may do so in The BBQ Pit.Heh. I was just about to say that everything tastes good when it's barbecued. Mmmmm, cows, pigs, chickens, dogs, horse...grill'em up and eat'em up! Yummy. Like I said in that moment as a child, when I first truly understood what meat really was, "Cool. Let's kill something and eat it."

Bear_Nenno

08-03-2008, 09:31 AM

I've eaten dog pleanty of times. The first one was curiousity. The next half dozen times was because it was there, and it was delicious. Granted, there was nothing exceptional about it. And had they used pork instead of dog in the soup, I most likely wouldn't have noticed. So basically, its a complete nonissue to me. Dog or no dog. If it's good soup, I'll eat it.

My wife on the other hand has never eaten dog, nor will she. Not because of the dog=pet thing, but because she says that dogs are peasant food. I guess its the same as some westerner who raises his/her nose at mac n cheese.

Bear_Nenno

08-03-2008, 09:33 AM

Oh, and FTR, I wouldn't have any beef (he he he he) with some culture eating their dead. Why the fuck would it bother me what other cultures do. Provided it doesn't involve oppression, torture or harm to its living.

Muffin

08-03-2008, 09:37 AM

"ivan astikov, what type of pet dog do you have?" Muffin asks hungrily.

essell

08-03-2008, 09:50 AM

Here's a question, if a dog dies in a train wreck is it okay to eat it?

Bear_Nenno

08-03-2008, 10:08 AM

How recently did it die?

CaerieD

08-03-2008, 10:11 AM

This isn't to say that eating dog is an everyday practice. Plenty of Koreans go through life never having touched the stuff. But most of us, even those of us with pet dogs, don't really bat an eyelash at the idea, because we are able to seperate the idea of my pet dog from that dog in the stew. The dog in the stew and I do not share a relationship. As far as I'm concerned, that dog in the stew is no different from that cow in my hamburger.

I agree with this and would like to add onto it. Plenty of my neighbors raise animals with whom they are quite friendly. They give them names, cuddle the babies, and brag about how big and healthy they are. Once those critters have gotten big enough, they're cheerfully slaughtered without a second thought about it and consumed.

This is in America.

They do this with cows and pigs every year. Yes, there are huge factory farms that produce the meat in the grocery store with which no one has a personal relationship, but plenty of normal, non-"primitive" Westerners see nothing wrong with eating animals that they raised, even after feeding piglets a bottle by hand.

To draw some artificial line between rural America and our practices with meat and other countries, simply based off of the animals that are being eaten, is ridiculous. I eat a largely vegan diet now, but in the past I've eaten veal, lamb, and cat. Cuteness has no effect on taste.

(Though in defense of stupid meat, lamb is my favorite.)

Darryl Lict

08-03-2008, 10:46 AM

I've had dog before. I had to go out of my way to get it. I was curious about it and it was pretty mediocre. I'd eat it if there weren't alternative meat sources. Pigs are highly intelligent, cute and make great pets. They are also delicious.

Hogwash

08-03-2008, 10:59 AM

Next time I find myself in a place that serves dog, I am going to order double, just because of this thread and the idiotic arguments you have made herein. You will be directly responsible for the consumption of a dog.

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 12:21 PM

Czarcasm

08-03-2008, 12:26 PM

At the moment in China, all restaurants are being discouraged from serving dog throughout the period of the Olympic Games, as has happened before in Seoul in 88, and during the 2002 World Cup; it's obvious the governments of both countries accept it is offensive. Human Cultures do not live in some sort of vacuum, and if a minority upsets the majority deliberately, it should be persuaded to change its ways. Or am I barking up the wrong tree?Bullshit. Restaurants have been and are discouraged from serving dog because the governments involved knew there would be (undeserved) bad publicity stemming from our ignorance of others' cultures if they didn't. The same ignorance you are showing in this thread.

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 12:38 PM

Bullshit. Restaurants have been and are discouraged from serving dog because the governments involved knew there would be (undeserved) bad publicity stemming from our ignorance of others' cultures if they didn't. The same ignorance you are showing in this thread.

Bollocks! If it is such a popular dish, how come they don't have fast food outlets trying to tout their tastes on the rest of the world? Because Kentucky Fried Dog doesn't quite have the same ring to it, that's why.

Czarcasm

08-03-2008, 12:43 PM

Bollocks! If it is such a popular dish, how come they don't have fast food outlets trying to tout their tastes on the rest of the world? Because Kentucky Fried Dog doesn't quite have the same ring to it, that's why.I have to go to a convention meeting, so I will hold off enjoying the lambasting you are going to get for that last statement until I get back this afternoon.

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 12:45 PM

I also noticed this in the Wikipedia article
Many Korean Buddhists consider eating meat an offense, which includes dog meat[citation needed]. Unlike beef, pork, or poultry, dog meat has no legal status as food in South Korea. Some in South Korea and abroad believe that dog meat should be expressly legalized so that only authorized preparers can deal with the meat in more humane and sanitary ways, while others think that the practice should be banned by law.

In recent years, more and more Korean people changed their attitude towards eating dog meat from 'personal choice 'to 'unnecessary cruelty'[citation needed]. Animal rights activists in South Korea protest against the custom of eating dog meat

If the people who practice this tradition are having doubts, is it surprising that I might have them also?

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 12:48 PM

I have to go to a convention meeting, so I will hold off enjoying the lambasting you are going to get for that last statement until I get back this afternoon.

I'll look forward to it, Czarcasm! The Defenders Against Ignorance are already riding ahead of you, to meet me! :)

Koxinga

08-03-2008, 12:53 PM

Dogs Not Food, 'Tis True?

Astroboy14

08-03-2008, 01:11 PM

It's worth noting that, at least in Korea, dog is considered a "stamina" food. In this case, stamina referring to sexual performance.

(The soup is pretty good, but the dog meat itself is pretty fatty... don't think I'd purposely consume it again.)

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 01:17 PM

Bolding mine.

Dog meat is supposed to raise the libido

it is particularly eaten in the winter months, especially black dogs, which are believed to help retain body warmth

Dogs are eaten in some states of Nigeria including Cross River, Plateau, Taraba and Gombe of Nigeria. They are believed to have medicinal powers

Today in Korea, a segment of the population enjoy bosintang (literally "invigorating soup"), believing it to have medicinal properties, particularly as relates to virility. Dog meat is also believed to keep one cool during the intense Korean summer.

Is anyone still going to tell me there is no ignorance involved in the eating of dog?

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 01:20 PM

Dogs Not Food, 'Tis True?

Very sad! So any forthright opinion is immediately trolling in your eyes, is it?

Gala Matrix Fire

08-03-2008, 01:25 PM

Is anyone still going to tell me there is no ignorance involved in the eating of dog?
No one told you that in the first place. You're making a strawman argument.

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 01:35 PM

No one told you that in the first place. You're making a strawman argument.

I don't see how on earth dog eating could be brought on by ignorance, as you argue,

Švejk reckons there is no ignorance involved...I reckon there is. Are you denying the statements in my quoted post above (#60), indicate a certain level of ignorance?

DianaG

08-03-2008, 01:48 PM

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 01:51 PM

Lots of people believe in lots of different properties of lots of different foods. Plenty of people believe that oysters are an aphrodisiac. Do you maintain that people only eat oysters out of ignorance?
Not all of them. But more than likely, mostly. Tiger's balls and bears paws don't make you virile, either.

Ferret Herder

08-03-2008, 02:05 PM

I also noticed this in the Wikipedia article

If the people who practice this tradition are having doubts, is it surprising that I might have them also?
You cited Buddhists, who dislike or even reject the eating of meat, and some animal rights-focused Koreans in general, while HazelNutCoffee said Koreans have in more recent years begun to adopt the keeping of dogs as pets. I'm a vegetarian, but we can't say "well, American vegetarians say that eating meat is bad so therefore no one should eat any meat, and you're all a bunch of backwards primitives to be eating like that." (Well, some vegetarians say that but they're assholes, mostly.)

And as a vegetarian I'd prefer that no one ate meat but I realize that's a pie-in-the-sky wish, and I even buy it and cook it for omnivores. My husband is one so I cook meat nearly every day.

Q.E.D.

08-03-2008, 02:31 PM

Švejk reckons there is no ignorance involved...I reckon there is.
Ignorance of what?

Alessan

08-03-2008, 02:41 PM

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 02:43 PM

Ignorance of what?

Of the actual benefits of eating dog, if there are any, other than it filling a hole in your stomach many other animals could fullfil. As indicated here;
Although dog meat is eaten in many countries around the world, it is often associated with Korea. It is a misperception that dog meat is a common cuisine in Korea. Although it is true that dog meat is occasionally eaten, it is a dish which is rarely consumed by the general public. The average Korean does not eat dog and the younger generations, in particular, frown upon the practice. In Korea, dog meat (prepared in a soup) is almost exclusively eaten by men for what is believed to be the health benefits (e.g., stamina).

It seems only the older, more traditionalist Koreans are clinging to this practice, and for pathetic sexual gratification purposes, at that. Is that not ignorance?

Q.E.D.

08-03-2008, 02:47 PM

Is that not ignorance?
Perhaps, but if a complete and accurate understanding of the nutritional benefits of the foodstuffs we consume is required in order to eat them, I daresay the vast majority of the population would starve. Besides, even if there's no benefit aside from mere nutrition, so what? We (as a species) eat a lot of things that are significantly more harmful to health than canis familiaris.

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 02:57 PM

Perhaps, but if a complete and accurate understanding of the nutritional benefits of the foodstuffs we consume is required in order to eat them, I daresay the vast majority of the population would starve. Besides, even if there's no benefit aside from mere nutrition, so what? We (as a species) eat a lot of things that are significantly more harmful to health than canis familiaris.

I know, but how many of them make you feel you are getting unconditional love from them? Pigs might be able to do it, but I couldn't strike up much of a relationship with anything else that ends up on my plate. And none of them would be allowed to get on my sofa with me!

Will Repair

08-03-2008, 02:57 PM

Eating dog makes me arf.

Astroboy14

08-03-2008, 02:58 PM

...pathetic sexual gratification purposes...

Bwah? There is NOTHING pathetic about sexual gratification, and if Fido has to die for me to achieve it... well, that's life!

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 03:03 PM

Bwah? There is NOTHING pathetic about sexual gratification, and if Fido has to die for me to achieve it... well, that's life!

Sexual gratification and getting the (rhino)horn, are not mutually inclusive!

DianaG

08-03-2008, 03:04 PM

Of the actual benefits of eating dog, if there are any, other than it filling a hole in your stomach many other animals could fullfil.
But what's the actual harm of eating dog, that doesn't apply to eating other animals?

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 03:09 PM

But what's the actual harm of eating dog, that doesn't apply to eating other animals?
I don't know, but Alessan has suggested that humans eating carnivores doesn't seem to be an optimum process. I suppose you could breed veggie dogs to overcome that, but I'd still turn it down as a dish, unless it was a matter of life and death..

Q.E.D.

08-03-2008, 03:14 PM

I don't know, but Alessan has suggested that humans eating carnivores doesn't seem to be an optimum process.
Except that dogs aren't strictly carnivores, they're omnivores, like pigs.

Gala Matrix Fire

08-03-2008, 03:32 PM

Švejk reckons there is no ignorance involved...I reckon there is. Are you denying the statements in my quoted post above (#60), indicate a certain level of ignorance?
D'oh! Missed that one.

If only people would get sensible about nutrition and farming methods and stop eating mammals (http://discovermagazine.com/2008/may/07-want-to-help-the-environment-eat-insects) in favor of the much-more-nutritious insects (http://ohioline.osu.edu/hyg-fact/2000/2160.html) with which our fruitful planet has blessed us (http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/32443/title/Insects_(the_original_white_meat)). There is a great deal of ignorance about what we choose to eat based on tradition. And don't get me started on dairy products.

[Guy quoted in article] wants people to move away from getting their protein from traditional livestock such as cows, pigs, and chickens because raising livestock has a huge negative impact on the environment, regardless of whether the animals belong to subsistence farmers in developing countries or a Western industrial conglomerate (see “Warning: Contains Pork By-Products,” page 40). A United Nations report released in 2006 calls the livestock sector “one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global.” The report notes that, among other adverse impacts, livestock production is responsible for 18 percent of global greenhouse-gas emissions. (That’s more than what is produced by transportation worldwide.) And the problem is only going to grow, with global production of meat reaching 465 million tons by 2050, double the amount produced in 2000.

“Americans have no idea how wasteful these large mammals are,” Gracer says. “If you want to feed a lot of people, insects are the best choice in terms of getting the biggest bang for your buck.” Insects, he claims, are nutritious. Although they typically contain less protein by weight than beef or chicken—100 grams of giant water bugs or small grasshoppers, for example, have about 20 grams of protein, compared with 27 grams in the same amount of lean ground beef—they do have other benefits. For instance, grasshoppers contain just one-third of the fat found in beef, and water bugs offer almost four times as much iron. A 100-gram portion of the cooked caterpillar Usata terpsichore has about 28 grams of protein. In their dried form, as they are commonly sold in Africa, insects such as grasshoppers may contain up to 60 percent protein.

Entomophagy (the eating of insects) has yet to become a day-to-day activity for most people in the United States and Europe in spite of the superior nutritional content of edible insects compared to other animals. Other cultures around the world have made insects a main ingredient in their diets, providing an excellent source of protein. Insects are an inexpensive substitute for meat in many developing countries.

In fact, the team found that crickets contained more than 1,550 milligrams of iron, 25 milligrams of zinc and 340 milligrams of calcium per 100 grams of dry tissue. Traditional cuisines in developing countries often fall short of the global guidelines for these minerals. Based on analyses of Luo-caught insects, just three crickets would provide an individual’s daily iron requirement.

Gram for gram, crickets or grasshoppers can be more nutritious than an equal quantity of beef or pork, says Victor B. Meyer-Rochow of Jacobs University in Bremen, Germany. One reason: Water constitutes a high percentage of meat, he says, whereas insects tend to be drier. Many insects also are richer in minerals than many meats, such as hamburger, his data show. And most lipids in bugs tend to be long-chain, unsaturated fats—healthier types than those predominant in conventional livestock.

Tell us again about ignorance in eating habits, won't you? And how we know better around these here parts.

Radaga

08-03-2008, 03:35 PM

Generally speaking, humans don't eat carnivores, at least as staples. It just dosesn't make sense from a production point of view. The purpose of meat animals is to transform plants into protein, so eating an animal that only conumes meat is adding an unnecessary step to the process. It just doesn't make caloric sense.

If someone already made this point, please ignore.

This is the most consistent point against eating dogs.

Other than that, I see no problem in eating dogs, baby seals, live lobsters, whatever, as long as it is tastes good.

Exception? Cannibalism might be off-limits, of course, but then again, if someone comes up with something that "tastes like people" (Hufu - Human Tofu, perhaps) I see no reason why not give a try. I am actually curious about what it should taste like. Also if there is some difference between man and woman and among races.

ivan astikov

08-03-2008, 03:38 PM

This is the most consistent point against eating dogs.

Other than that, I see no problem in eating dogs, baby seals, live lobsters, whatever, as long as it is tastes good.

Exception? Cannibalism might be off-limits, of course, but then again, if someone comes up with something that "tastes like people" (Hufu - Human Tofu, perhaps) I see no reason why not give a try. I am actually curious about what it should taste like. Also if there is some difference between man and woman and among races.

Well, I think I'd prefer an Italian to a Chinese!

Q.E.D.

08-03-2008, 03:39 PM

Nah, too greasy.

Autolycus

08-03-2008, 06:18 PM

Q.E.D.

08-03-2008, 06:21 PM

.....

Naaaah, too easy. :D

Autolycus

08-03-2008, 06:34 PM

.....

Naaaah, too easy. :D

Thank you sir :p

clairobscur

08-03-2008, 07:00 PM

Since I don't feel like picking on ivan, I'll throw out a hijack.

I'll eat almost anything, but I draw the line at primates, chimps, and other banana-eating entities. While I don't have a logical argument, it feels unethical to me. Too close to home, ya know?

Same for me, at least regarding great apes.

For the record, I wouldn't eat dogs, I think, but I've no problem with other people eating them. On the other hand, I eat horses.

I would also have no problem with people eating their dead relatives, though I would not attend such funerals.

clairobscur

08-03-2008, 07:10 PM

and if a minority upsets the majority deliberately, it should be persuaded to change its ways.

Since when?

Given that a lot of our values and customs upset the majority of the world, should we change our ways, regarding for instance sexuality (women not dressing conservatively, tolerance of homosexuality, etc...)?

HazelNutCoffee

08-03-2008, 08:27 PM

Bollocks! If it is such a popular dish, how come they don't have fast food outlets trying to tout their tastes on the rest of the world? Because Kentucky Fried Dog doesn't quite have the same ring to it, that's why.
First, dog meat is not a popular dish. Jesus Christ. Can you fucking read? There are many Koreans that go through life never eating dog, just like there are many Americans who never eat rattlesnake.

Second, we respect the fact that some people think eating dog is gross. You guys think Fido is like a son to you? That's cool. We're not going to insult you by serving you his cousin for dinner. (And on a more practical note, there is obviously no money in this business. Why the hell would a Korean open a dog meat restaurant in the US when they already know it's going to fail? Would you start selling burgers in a Hindi neighborhood?)

Because you are a closeminded ignorant asshole, you seem to think that the fact such a restaurant would fail means that such a restaurant is immoral. All it means is that people in the West have hangups about eating dog. There's nothing wrong with that. There is something wrong with assuming that your cultural norms are some kind of universal ethical standard, as has been pointed out to countless times in this thread.

Seoul cracked down on dog meat in 88 because of judgemental fuckwits like you, not because they felt there was anything wrong with it.

I know, but how many of them make you feel you are getting unconditional love from them?
That dog? In the stew right there? It didn't unconditionally love you. It has nothing to do with your dog. It is a dog. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Plenty of people cry after Charlotte's Web and Babe yet will still happily eat pork chops. It's because they are able to separate the pig on their plate from the pig in their mind. I understand this is difficult to do with dog for some people, because dogs have become a cultural icon in the West, but at the very least you should be able to see that your squeamishness is a result of cultural blinders, not because dog eaters are essentially stupid and immoral.

I don't even know why I'm bothering.

Koxinga

08-03-2008, 09:29 PM

Q.E.D.

08-03-2008, 09:34 PM

In other words . . .
...He's snacking on a Schnauzer sandwich as we speak?

Siam Sam

08-03-2008, 09:42 PM

Overheard by me in an anthropology class way back when:

Q: What's a Sioux picnic?
A: A six-pack and a puppy.

Seems the Sioux were dog-eaters. The Thais are not, but the Vietnamese are, and there are pockets of ethnic Vietnamese in the Northeast, and there are dog dealers who will go around to other towns and buy up unwanted dogs to sell to those communities for food. Certain of the hilltribes in the North also eat dog, such as the Akha.

Myself, I've not and would rather not, even though munching down on a chihuahua might be considered poetic justice.

TheLoadedDog

08-03-2008, 09:47 PM

Seems the Sioux were dog-eaters. The Thais are not, but the Vietnamese are, and there are pockets of ethnic Vietnamese in the Northeast, and there are dog dealers who will go around to other towns and buy up unwanted dogs to sell to those communities for food. Certain of the hilltribes in the North also eat dog, such as the Akha.

Yeah, but as was mentioned about the Koreans upthread, you won't find the average Vietnamese person vaguely interested in dog - it's generally a certain cohort of working class men in their 50s and older who eat the stuff for reasons of "stamina". I did eat weird shit like snake when I was over there, but I never even had a hunch that dog was being served. I've never even heard it mentioned by the local Australian Vietnamese community - which I've been immersed in for nearly twenty years.

The stories of Westerners in Vietnam being given dog in restaurant switcheroos are also likely urban myths. Where it is available, dog is a very expensive meat. Any substitution would likely be the other way around - you ask for dog and get something else.

Ale

08-03-2008, 09:48 PM

Human Cultures do not live in some sort of vacuum, and if a minority upsets the majority deliberately, it should be persuaded to change its ways.

Why yes, they also flip their middle finger in your general direction when they tuck in. :rolleyes:

Do you honestly think they eat what they eat for the purpose of upseting you? (or whatever majority you claim to be part of)

Siam Sam

08-03-2008, 09:52 PM

Yeah, but as was mentioned about the Koreans upthread, you won't find the average Vietnamese person vaguely interested in dog - it's generally a certain cohort of working class men in their 50s and older who eat the stuff for reasons of "stamina". I did eat weird shit like snake when I was over there, but I never even had a hunch that dog was being served. I've never even heard it mentioned by the local Australian Vietnamese community - which I've been immersed in for nearly twenty years.
Perhaps, but the dog vendors in northeastern Thailand do exist for the Vietnamese communities. It's probably as you mention, for the older folks, with the younger ones not really partaking.

DLuxN8R-13

08-03-2008, 11:03 PM

Why do these people choose to eat an animal that is so highly valued, and appreciated - and not for its meat content - elsewhere in the world?

On the off chance that you're actually curious about why some cultures consider Ol' Blue a food animal, I offer you the simplest and most obvious of practical reasons.

Consider the dog, Ivan. Consider him as a zoological entity, a living beast made of living meat, one who eats, and ages, and possibly even reproduces.

As an animal, what does such a dog have in common with a chicken or swine?

Yep, you got it --they're all hardy, prolific animals-- and they can thrive on Man's scraps and rubbished food. In other words they turn garbage into edible food, and pretty quickly too. That's why chicken and pork have historically been the meat of poor folks and subsistence farmers, and domestic canids* have the same qualities to make them a desirable meat-beasty.

*Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the dogs kept by various dog-eating cultures (I'm mostly thinking of the Plains Indians and some Polynesian Islanders in this connection) usually of the generic "feist" type --little nondescript terrier-looking guys who weigh fifteen to thirty pounds and mostly have short, smooth "yaller" or spotty coats and curvy tails?

panache45

08-04-2008, 12:53 AM

How far should we respect another's culture, if they don't respect what we respect?
I've been on the SDMB for about 10 years, and this has got to be one of the most stupid things I've read. In fact I had to read it several times, to comprehend that anyone would voice such an ignorant sentiment.

How far should THEY respect YOUR culture, if YOU don't respect what THEY respect?

Captain Amazing

08-04-2008, 01:06 AM

HazelNutCoffee and others, since he doesn't want to rationally defend his position, isn't it clear that ivan doesn't necessarily even believe it himself--he just enjoys seeing you get worked up over it? In other words . . .

I don't think that neccesarily follows. It's more likely that he has a prejudice against eating dog meat...that he thinks it's wrong, but he doesn't have a rational reason for believing that. Just because a belief isn't rational doesn't mean it isn't sincere, though.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 01:52 AM

I've been on the SDMB for about 10 years, and this has got to be one of the most stupid things I've read. In fact I had to read it several times, to comprehend that anyone would voice such an ignorant sentiment.

How far should THEY respect YOUR culture, if YOU don't respect what THEY respect?

The culture in most places in general for respecting dogs, is based on practical and worthwhile considerations of the animal's usefulness to society, not on their ability to give you a boner if you cook them with the right seasoning. Get your head from up your arse.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 02:04 AM

Let's see if I've got this straight! It seems a dog's fate very much depends on the luck of the draw . If it is born in the vast majority of places, it is treated with respect, dignity and kindness( with the occasional exceptions.), befitting the service or purpose it provides mankind, and if in other ever-decreasing pockets of human society, it is treated with the utmost cruelty, and is fit only to be served on a plate, and mostly for the absurd reason that "it makes you virile!".

Yet I'm just a sentimental old fool, railing against an imperfect world, because people should be entitled to eat what they want, whenever they want it? That sounds awfully like that, "God put all animals on Earth to be eaten" bullshit, to me. Is the SD a typical meeting-place for the Christian meat-eating far-reich? Because, as I've already stated, I'd prefer not to muddy the waters any more than necessary, and leave religion out of this. Do try not to mistake my cynicism for bare-assed trolling. It is a very-blinkered way of looking at things, and is just as narrow-minded an attitude as I'm supposed to have.

Those of you who have replied with facts or opinions free of accusations, thanks for posting...anyone else, GFY!

HazelNutCoffee

08-04-2008, 02:10 AM

The culture in most places in general for respecting dogs, is based on practical and worthwhile considerations of the animal's usefulness to society, not on their ability to give you a boner if you cook them with the right seasoning. Get your head from up your arse.
What, exactly, is the dog's "usefulness" to modern society, other than as a pet?

Look, you can rail against people being stupid enough to believe eating dogflesh will increase your virility. But then you should at least be consistent and say people who eat oyster or eel for the same reasons are just as stupid. We keep coming back to the same point: You think dogs are special, yet have failed to provide any rational justification as to why everyone else should think so as well. Do you know why? Because there is no rational justification, as numerous people have pointed out again and again in this very thread.

HazelNutCoffee

08-04-2008, 02:17 AM

Yet I'm just a sentimental old fool, railing against an imperfect world, because people should be entitled to eat what they want, whenever they want it? That sounds awfully like that, "God put all animals on Earth to be eaten" bullshit, to me. Is the SD a typical meeting-place for the Christian meat-eating far-reich? Because, as I've already stated, I'd prefer not to muddy the waters any more than necessary, and leave religion out of this. Do try not to mistake my cynicism for bare-assed trolling. It is a very-blinkered way of looking at things, and is just as narrow-minded an attitude as I'm supposed to have.

You may not be a troll, but you are most certainly an ass. YOU are the one bringing religion into this discussion. And taking some sort of weird smug satisfaction in your own ignorance, it seems.

Since you are so fond of invoking the majority, perhaps you should consider the fact that everyone else in this thread thinks you are an idiot.

Whatever. I'm done ramming my head against a brick wall.

Ale

08-04-2008, 02:17 AM

Argent Towers

08-04-2008, 02:18 AM

Whatever. I'm done ramming my head against a brick wall.

A brick wall at least has structural integrity on its side. You've been ramming your head against a wall of jell-o. Dog-flavored jell-o.

Ale

08-04-2008, 02:21 AM

And for what it´s worth, a dog wouldn´t particularly mind eating a human being, if it´s hungry enough and is given the chance.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 02:22 AM

What, exactly, is the dog's "usefulness" to modern society, other than as a pet?
Have you ever seen a 'seeing-eye' chicken or 'guide-sheep'? What about a guard cow? Have you come across any hunting cows recently? I really can't believe you asked that question.

Look, you can rail against people being stupid enough to believe eating dogflesh will increase your virility. But then you should at least be consistent and say people who eat oyster or eel for the same reasons are just as stupid.
That goes without saying...the same as anyone who thinks bears, tigers and rhino's have machismo enhancing qualities.

We keep coming back to the same point: You think dogs are special, yet have failed to provide any rational justification as to why everyone else should think so as well. Do you know why? Because there is no rational justification, as numerous people have pointed out again and again in this very thread.
Are you saying there isn't a particularly special relationship between mankind and dogs? That would seem to go against all historical records?

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 02:24 AM

You haven´t been around much, have you?

Stick a few more words in there and you might have a sentence that passes for half sensible.

Ale

08-04-2008, 02:24 AM

Are you saying there isn't a particularly special relationship between mankind and dogs? That would seem to go against all historical records?

Here (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Tsunami_Disaster/0,,2-10-1777_1645869,00.html) see what dogs feel about that special relationship.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 02:30 AM

YOU are the one bringing religion into this discussion.
No, I'm NOT!
(# 15) Do you think that people who are Jewish, Muslim or Hindu generally think its disrespectful of you to eat pork or beef? Would you agree with them if they did think it was disrespectful?

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 02:33 AM

Here (http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Tsunami_Disaster/0,,2-10-1777_1645869,00.html) see what dogs feel about that special relationship.

Needs must, and that. At least they aren't doing it to go and impress some bitches!

Ale

08-04-2008, 02:52 AM

Stick a few more words in there and you might have a sentence that passes for half sensible.

The world at large, and dog/human interaction in particular, are a tad more nuanced than the average Lassie episode. The way you are casting generalities about what dogs are and how they are viewed shows that you have a rather limited scope on the matter, namely, your own very narrow preconceptions.

Peel your eyes from your navel and look around a little and you´ll find that things are not assumed to be just as you expect them to be everywhere.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 03:13 AM

The world at large, and dog/human interaction in particular, are a tad more nuanced than the average Lassie episode. The way you are casting generalities about what dogs are and how they are viewed shows that you have a rather limited scope on the matter, namely, your own very narrow preconceptions.

Peel your eyes from your navel and look around a little and you´ll find that things are not assumed to be just as you expect them to be everywhere.

You've assumed my limited scope on the subject, now would you like to explain the nuances I am missing?

Koxinga

08-04-2008, 03:22 AM

Anyone tempted to answer, please take note of his previous train wreck on this subject. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=474998&page=2&pp=50&highlight=ivan+astikov)

Shawn1767

08-04-2008, 03:24 AM

Regarding a dog's usefulness: so you have no problem with having a dog being what is essentially an animal "slave," that you tell who, when, where it can fuck, where and when it can shit, what and when it can eat, you probably have to keep it on a leash so it doesn't run away, probably have to keep it fenced in or indoors so it doesn't run away, which, if it does run away-you probably hunt it down and put its picture up on telephone poles so that it can be returned to you AND somehow think it unconditionally "loves" you even though you'd have no proof of that... and you have a problem with people eating dogs? You're an idiot.

I hate how dogs are somehow put on a pedestal, when it's been thousands of years of manipulation that has made them into the animals they are. And that somehow dog lovers think they are actually benefitting their dogs in some way. Guess what, the dog wants to be a fucking dog! If they didn't, there wouldn't be electric fences and leashes for sale. They have no more superiority than any other animal that would be used for food.

HongKongFooey

08-04-2008, 03:26 AM

I have to go to a convention meeting, so I will hold off enjoying the lambasting you are going to get for that last statement until I get back this afternoon.mmmm, basted lamb :: Homer Simpson-style drooling ::

Seriously, ivan, I don't understand your reasoning. I have two dogs who are quite safe from being eaten but what do I care if someone in China is eating dog, or someone in France is eating horse?

Out of curiosity, would you have let your family starve during a siege such as at Stalingrad or would you have eaten the family pet? IMO, they weren't savages and neither are people who grew up in cultures where dog-eating is acceptable. You can't compare their situations to yours, different times, different cultures, you shouldn't feel superior just because you grew up with a dog as a pet.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 03:39 AM

Koxinga

08-04-2008, 03:45 AM

Which is more than can be said for those who eat dog because they think it will be able to make them, "Fucky fucky long time!".

When you say things like that, be sure to pull the corners of your eyes upward and make like you've got big buck teeth. That will get your message across even more effectively. ETA: And we can all be crystal clear on what your real beef is here.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 03:49 AM

Out of curiosity, would you have let your family starve during a siege such as at Stalingrad or would you have eaten the family pet? IMO, they weren't savages and neither are people who grew up in cultures where dog-eating is acceptable. You can't compare their situations to yours, different times, different cultures, you shouldn't feel superior just because you grew up with a dog as a pet.

People can eat what they want if it means the difference between life and death, and under certain circumstances, I'm sure I'd do the same. But all cultures seem to have had proscribed flesh of some sort, and if any animal other than primates should be on that list, then I can't think of a better candidate - on land - than a dog.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 03:51 AM

When you say things like that, be sure to pull the corners of your eyes upward and make like you've got big buck teeth. That will get your message across even more effectively.

I was doing that....how did you know???

p.s. And if you are hinting I was having a go at ignorant oriental males, you were bang-on!

Koxinga

08-04-2008, 03:52 AM

I've met racist shitheads before.

ETA: Ah. "Oriental". Good one.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 03:57 AM

I've met racist shitheads before.

There's not a drop of racist blood in my body. I'm just targeting the typical dog eater. If you know of any closer to home, let me know and I'll add them to my list.

Koxinga

08-04-2008, 04:11 AM

I dunno, ivan. I do believe we've had a couple of orientals participate in this thread, or husbands of orientals. What do you guys think?

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 04:19 AM

I dunno, ivan. I do believe we've had a couple of orientals participate in this thread, or husbands of orientals. What do you guys think?
That may well be the case, but none of them have vouched for the said properties of eating dogs, so I assume they aren't the backward thinking males I am talking about.

HazelNutCoffee

08-04-2008, 04:25 AM

There's not a drop of racist blood in my body. I'm just targeting the typical dog eater.
Sigh. There is no thing as the "typical dog eater" here. Your assumption that everyone who eats dog is "Oriental" and can't speak English is grossly ignorant. Plenty of tourists come to Korea and try it out to see what it's like.

I am an Oriental, as you so nicely put it. I have met many Koreans who have eaten dog. They all live in Seoul and have white-collar jobs. Some are even professors. Imagine, people with PhDs, eating dog! They eat dog because they like it. They don't go around butchering seeing-eye dogs or toy poodles either, as you seem to be suggesting. Some people just eat dogs because they taste good. It's really as simple as that. The "special relationship" you keep hanging on to is a cultural difference. In the West, in certain cultures, dogs are considered to be "man's best friend," and as such they are not considered food. But in other cultures, they are no different than cats or rabbits or pigeons or fish.

Are you really incapable of seeing how arbitrary your imagined human-dog connection is? Why don't you just grow some balls and admit that what you're really trying to say is that you think "Oriental cultures" are all primitive and immoral?

For the record, this Oriental bitch thinks you are an ignorant racist asshole. But what do I know, I think eating dog is okay.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 04:29 AM

Can I ask for a show of hands at this point?

How many people think eating dogs for their 'medicinal qualities' is a perfectly acceptable state of affairs, and not something "outsiders" should be sticking their nose in?

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 04:39 AM

Sigh. There is no thing as the "typical dog eater" here. Your assumption that everyone who eats dog is "Oriental" and can't speak English is grossly ignorant. Plenty of tourists come to Korea and try it out to see what it's like.

I am an Oriental, as you so nicely put it. I have met many Koreans who have eaten dog. They all live in Seoul and have white-collar jobs. Some are even professors. Imagine, people with PhDs, eating dog! They eat dog because they like it. They don't go around butchering seeing-eye dogs or toy poodles either, as you seem to be suggesting. Some people just eat dogs because they taste good. It's really as simple as that. The "special relationship" you keep hanging on to is a cultural difference. In the West, in certain cultures, dogs are considered to be "man's best friend," and as such they are not considered food. But in other cultures, they are no different than cats or rabbits or pigeons or fish.

Are you really incapable of seeing how arbitrary your imagined human-dog connection is? Why don't you just grow some balls and admit that what you're really trying to say is that you think "Oriental cultures" are all primitive and immoral?

For the record, this Oriental bitch thinks you are an ignorant racist asshole. But what do I know, I think eating dog is okay.

I have great admiration for lots of Far Eastern culture, but I do think eating dogs when there are so many options available, is a blot on your historical landscape. The fact that it does not seem to be increasing in either your own part of the world or elsewhere, seems to bear out my personal abhorrence to the practice.

And are those white-collar workers, professors, and people with PhD's male, perchance? How many of your female friends and associates eat dog on a regular basis?

Darryl Lict

08-04-2008, 04:44 AM

I'm an "oriental" male, born and bred in America and as stated earlier, have eaten dog. Now that you mentioned it, there was a preponderance of men at the dog restaurant, but I never heard of it as an aphrodisiac. I think it's fine to eat dogs for whatever fucking reason people want to.

You are, however, a retard.

HazelNutCoffee

08-04-2008, 04:49 AM

I have great admiration for lots of Far Eastern culture, but I do think eating dogs when there are so many options available, is a blot on your historical landscape. The fact that it does not seem to be increasing in either your own part of the world or elsewhere, seems to bear out my personal abhorrence to the practice.

And are those white-collar workers, professors, and people with PhD's male, perchance? How many of your female friends and associates eat dog on a regular basis?
The fact that it is not increasing is because Western culture is becoming the norm, for better or for worse. Your idiocy is revealed in the fact that you consider Western culture (or eating habits, at least) to be somehow superior to the rest of the world.

Eating dog is a predominantly male activity. Like drinking beer and watching football in the US. I've known women who've eaten dog as well. Those that don't are not abstaining because they think the act per se is immoral. For example, my mom doesn't like the smell of the meat.

Jesus Christ. I've never had a desire to eat dog meat, but this entire thread makes me want to go out and butcher the first puppy I see and devour it raw for dinner.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 04:50 AM

Argent Towers

08-04-2008, 04:51 AM

I have great admiration for lots of Far Eastern culture, but I do think eating dogs when there are so many options available, is a blot on your historical landscape.

How many options are available? In some cases, it's more economically sensible to eat dog - since they are easy to raise, can get by on scraps and don't require special food , and breed quickly - than to eat other kinds of animals. Sometimes people are hungry or poor and they don't have other options available.

In any case, you're being a fucking idiot by pushing this matter and being so damn hard-headed about it. A dog is just another animal - I like dogs, a lot, and I probably wouldn't eat one, but I realize that I've just been conditioned by my culture to have that aversion, and I don't have any problems with other cultures doing it. You're making this out to be some kind of evil, morally corrupt thing, and it isn't.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 04:57 AM

The fact that it is not increasing is because Western culture is becoming the norm, for better or for worse. Your idiocy is revealed in the fact that you consider Western culture (or eating habits, at least) to be somehow superior to the rest of the world.

Not 'superior', 'predominant'. The West is doing it's best to try and assimilate the best qualities of other cultures - or at least it should be- but you can keep your dog fricassee, if you don't mind!

Eating dog is a predominantly male activity. Like drinking beer and watching football in the US. I've known women who've eaten dog as well. Those that don't are not abstaining because they think the act per se is immoral. For example, my mom doesn't like the smell of the meat.
You're just helping me confirm that it is ass-hole males who are helping to propagate this shit, so thank you.

Jesus Christ. I've never had a desire to eat dog meat, but this entire thread makes me want to go out and butcher the first puppy I see and devour it raw for dinner.

I like the cut of your jib really, HNC. ;)

Argent Towers

08-04-2008, 04:58 AM

You're an idiot, go fuck your mother.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 05:03 AM

How many options are available? In some cases, it's more economically sensible to eat dog - since they are easy to raise, can get by on scraps and don't require special food , and breed quickly - than to eat other kinds of animals. Sometimes people are hungry or poor and they don't have other options available.
And those are all valid reasons for eating anything! But advertising mystical qualities to be associated with eating certain animals, doesn't fall into any of those categories, does it?

In any case, you're being a fucking idiot by pushing this matter and being so damn hard-headed about it. A dog is just another animal - I like dogs, a lot, and I probably wouldn't eat one, but I realize that I've just been conditioned by my culture to have that aversion, and I don't have any problems with other cultures doing it. You're making this out to be some kind of evil, morally corrupt thing, and it isn't.
Not really. More like selfish, and perverse!

Argent Towers

08-04-2008, 05:04 AM

What are you doing here? I thought I told you to go fuck your mother.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 05:05 AM

You're an idiot, go fuck your mother.

After I've finished with yours. ( Don't tell me she's dead, that'll turn me on to fuck!)

Radaga

08-04-2008, 05:06 AM

As long as it is a vegan, so i am not eating a carnivore, of course ;)

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 05:10 AM

As long as it is a vegan, so i am not eating a carnivore, of course ;)

Argent says it's okay, cos dogs are omnivores. Chow down!

HongKongFooey

08-04-2008, 05:12 AM

After I've finished with yours. ( Don't tell me she's dead, that'll turn me on to fuck!)Wow, it's a good thing he didn't insult your dog :rolleyes: You are well and truly fucked up.

Bill Door

08-04-2008, 05:12 AM

Hey, if dogs aren't meant to be eaten, how come they're made out of meat?

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 05:13 AM

Wow, it's a good thing he didn't insult your dog :rolleyes: You are well and truly fucked up.

It's only jolly banter. If you are feeling a bit squeamish, perhaps you should try another thread?

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 05:16 AM

Hey, if dogs aren't meant to be eaten, how come they're made out of meat?
Can I feed you to my dog then. Perhaps there could be a new "Fuckwit flavour" dog meat for the market?

HongKongFooey

08-04-2008, 05:20 AM

It's only jolly banter. If you are feeling a bit squeamish, perhaps you should try another thread?Yeah, it's jolly banter now that you see your ideas don't have any traction. How many people do you think you've converted to your way of thinking so far?

Autolycus

08-04-2008, 05:26 AM

I like the cut of your jib really, HNC. ;)

I think HNC wants to tear off your jib and hang you with it, but that's just me.

In any case, no love for cats ivan?

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 05:34 AM

I think HNC wants to tear off your jib and hang you with it, but that's just me.

In any case, no love for cats ivan?

You mean 'roof rabbits'? Actually, I like cats too...but I couldn't eat a full one!

Švejk

08-04-2008, 05:35 AM

fucking hell, I can't believe this thread is still going strong. Anyway, Ivan, let me join the choir by stating what I should have told you yesterday, which is that you're a crazy fool. I too will torture and kill a puppy so I can eat it. Fuck you, and fuck your dog.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 05:45 AM

Yeah, it's jolly banter now that you see your ideas don't have any traction. How many people do you think you've converted to your way of thinking so far?

There's a difference between trying to convert someone, and getting them to see your POV. One is impossible, for starters...no need to guess which one! As for the other, most replies seem to suggest I haven't got one worth airing, which has been a salutary lesson.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 05:47 AM

Radaga

08-04-2008, 06:53 AM

Argent says it's okay, cos dogs are omnivores. Chow down!

Oh, I was talking about human-flavored meals. should be vegan-flavored meals, since we do not eat carnivores.

clairobscur

08-04-2008, 07:04 AM

Let's see if I've got this straight! It seems a dog's fate very much depends on the luck of the draw . If it is born in the vast majority of places, it is treated with respect, dignity and kindness

Nope. In the vast majority of place, it's treated acceptably, without respect and kindness, and only as long as it is useful (for hunt, shepherding, watch, pulling things).

FoieGrasIsEvil

08-04-2008, 07:19 AM

Are you morally opposed to foie gras?
Harrumph. I for one, am most decidedly NOT. The problem with foie gras is it's expense and it's meat-butter goodness, which means I don't get to eat it much.

It's really fucking bullshit.

If someone can teach me how to turn my two dogs into foie gras, let me know, so I can eat them, too.

Carmady

08-04-2008, 07:27 AM

I can't believe everyone missed the sarcasm in this thread.

Think about it. ivan makes a point of arguing that dogs are no more intelligent than some other animals we eat, and that therefore opposition to eating dogs is just an irrational feeling based on the culture one grew up in.

And yet he concludes that eating dogs is wrong? When he just argued that it wasn't?

It seems clear that ivan is mocking the usual irrational and racist arguments against eating dogs.

Well done, ivan. Even I, who grew up in America thinking of dogs as pets, have to accept your argument. As long as I eat other "smart" animals such as pigs, there is no real reason not to eat dogs. Based on your argument, I would now be willing to try it.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 07:34 AM

Radegast

08-04-2008, 07:54 AM

When I lived in Seoul, one of my Korean colleagues thought it was absolutely revolting when I told him I had eaten squirrel. I looked at him and said "woof." That was the end of that discussion.

The Koreans eat it in a kind of stew -- boshintang, or, somewhat comedically, mongmong-tang (mongmong being the Korean equivalent of woof woof). It smells bad and doesn't taste much better. It is eaten by men to increase their "energy." Oriental medicine has a very complicated system of foods for diffferent physiological types and different ailments. Eating dog is part of that complex system.

Autolycus

08-04-2008, 08:08 AM

See, it took a guest to perceive the blatantly obvious. Some of you Doper's have been here too long.

Bullshit.

Argent Towers

08-04-2008, 08:09 AM

Dogshit.

Bulldog shit.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 08:28 AM

Dogshit.

Bulldog shit.

Yes it was. It was me being sarcastic. But, back to the thread. Back in post #31, you stated that the questions in my OP had already been answered, and that the thread had turned into a 'train-wreck'. Yet, at that point, I'd been given nothing but opinions in response to my query about it's prevalence, and it wasn't until 5 posts later that HNC chimed in with a Wikipedia link, which I had already seen, and which was full of [citation needed] remarks.

Meanwhile, 100+ posts later, that is still the only link I have been given, and this train is still trundling along. So, has anyone got something other than opinion to add? Or are you going to continue to compound my ignorance, by talking bull-dog shit?

Bryan Ekers

08-04-2008, 08:35 AM

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 08:40 AM

I'm sick of these motherfuckin' dogs on these motherfuckin' menus!

But seriously, I don't know why dogs being viewed as pets in one culture and food in another culture would be a big deal to someone unless they were writing an attention-seeking thread.

Ahem! Aren't all OP's attention seeking threads? Otherwise, what exactly is the point of them? Your implication that I somehow need, yours, or anyone else's attention, is a little pathetic, and for some strange reason I'd have expected better from you.

Bryan Ekers

08-04-2008, 08:43 AM

Your implication
Feel free to upgrade that to "statement".

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 08:47 AM

Feel free to upgrade that to "statement".

You know nothing about me as a person, so I'll amend it to WAG!

Autolycus

08-04-2008, 09:06 AM

If we can hit this bullseye, all the dominos will fall like a house of cards…checkmate!

... don't mind me..

Bryan Ekers

08-04-2008, 09:26 AM

You know nothing about me as a person
You're right, I can only form an opinion based on my observations of your posting habits.

I stand by my "attention-seeking" assertion.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 09:29 AM

You're right, I can only form an opinion based on my observations of your posting habits.

I stand by my "attention-seeking" assertion.

Stop feeding my attention seeking behaviour then. Isn't that the obvious thing to do? Go on, be off with with you!

Bryan Ekers

08-04-2008, 09:33 AM

Stop feeding my attention seeking behaviour then. Isn't that the obvious thing to do? Go on, be off with with you!

But I have my own attention-seeking needs to fill and you provide me so many opportunities to indulge my sarcasm that it would be inefficient for me to move on just yet.

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 10:04 AM

But I have my own attention-seeking needs to fill and you provide me so many opportunities to indulge my sarcasm that it would be inefficient for me to move on just yet.
Glad to be of service, Bryan. Things a bit slow at your end too?

Koxinga

08-04-2008, 10:25 AM

You know, ivan, I can't say I feel sorry for you, but the potential might be there. It looks to me like you've got quite a bit of pent-up hostility that you like to disguise as smirking tomfoolery. Maybe you've got a bit of masochism too, as you enjoy receiving the abuse and hostility you engender in others in this thread. And now, I'm reading your recent thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=475407) about how your dog is dying, which probably goes a long way toward explaining your otherwise inexplicable behavior on this topic. And the inordinate amount of time you seem to be spending on this board clues me in that you probably don't have anybody else to talk to, no friends.

All I can say is, if you are the lonely, angry guy I now picture you to be, you're not doing yourself any favors by shitting on this community. It's a great place to spend time for lighthearted topics and for support when one is going through major challenges in life. But before you can partake in it, you've really got to try to start taking some baby steps toward being a socially functional human being.

With that, I wash my hands of you. If I still see your name around the boards a year or two down the line I might be open to reading your posts again, but until you reach that milestone, you're persona non grata in my book. Goodbye.

Bryan Ekers

08-04-2008, 10:38 AM

Moving on...

ivan astikov

08-04-2008, 10:45 AM

You say all that like it's a bad thing!

If it wasn't for lonely, dysfunctional males, there probably wouldn't be an internet for you to carry out your amateur psychiatric analysis on. Or maybe you are one of the professionals on the board, Koxinga?

Czarcasm

08-04-2008, 11:45 AM

Bullshit.I agree. If that's the truth, then every one of his posts after the first supposed "misunderstanding" is pure asshattery.

HazelNutCoffee

08-04-2008, 02:20 PM

Sorry for my absence. I was out killing and eating all the puppies I could find.

Rather than risk the graphic illustrations I may come across while browsing for my own answers, I thought I'd ask my question in here. Just how many dogs are estimated to be eaten each year, and how on Earth is this activity still going on, when there are so many alternatives available? Why do these people choose to eat an animal that is so highly valued, and appreciated - and not for its meat content - elsewhere in the world?
1. I don't know.
2. Why do people eat pigs when they can eat cows? Because they fucking feel like it. People like different things.
3. Value is relative. We don't care that you think Fido is your second child. We respect that you do, and therefore don't flaunt our dog-eating habits in your face.

I see your POV, ivan. Like Argent, I like dogs (and cats), and wouldn't go out of my way to eat one myself. However, I also understand that this particular POV is heavily influenced by my upbringing, not by any sort of logic. Something you have failed to wrap your tiny brain around, apparently.

And this is my last post in this thread.

Siam Sam

08-04-2008, 08:51 PM

I dunno, ivan. I do believe we've had a couple of orientals participate in this thread, or husbands of orientals. What do you guys think?
Oh, I think I've got him pegged as a couple of things.

And I have to agree with Ale, too. Except for the little Foo Foos that are doted on by some of the wealthier families, dogs are treated miserably in many if not most parts of the world.

Q.E.D.

08-04-2008, 08:56 PM

I dunno, ivan. I do believe we've had a couple of orientals participate in this thread, or husbands of orientals. What do you guys think?
Yep, I think we found the chink in his armor. :D

*D&R*

Telemark

08-04-2008, 09:09 PM

Yep, I think we found the chink in his armor. :D
That's just your slant on things.

pulykamell

08-04-2008, 09:22 PM

Okay, I get it. I'm just an ignorant Westerner with no ability to conceive how Other People eat stuff that I don't. Let's forget about it.

That is how it's coming across, yes.

What about the cute little bunnies many Westerners eat? Why is that acceptable, but dog not? Bunnies make lovely pets, and I've known more than one person with a close emotional attachment to their pet rabbits. Yet rabbit-eating isn't taboo around here.

I've eaten horse sausage (that's a taboo I don't quite get, either. What's so special about horse?) and would try dog in a heartbeat given the chance. If I condemn dog-eating, then I feel I should be consistent and condemn all meat-eating. There's nothing, for me, that makes a dog particularly special versus a pig, a cow, a horse, a fuzzy little bunny rabbit, etc.

edit: Whoa, I didn't see there's four pages in this thread. Please ignore if all this has been already gone over.

Bryan Ekers

08-04-2008, 10:44 PM

I've eaten horse sausage
All by themselves, these four words are funnier than ivan's collected posting history.

MrSquishy

08-04-2008, 11:22 PM

So I'm kind of confused now. Is Ivan for eating dog, or against it?

Anyway, if you're still against it, Ivan, or at least taking a devil's advocate position, I wonder if you would answer this: would it be OK for people to eat wild dogs? Coyotes, wolves, dingos, etc.?

Muffin

08-04-2008, 11:46 PM

Or for the more cultured, deep fried chocolate coated chihuahuas.

Siam Sam

08-05-2008, 12:08 AM

Or for the more cultured, deep fried chocolate coated chihuahuas.
Yeah! THAT'LL show the yappy little bastards.

It's not like they're real dogs anyway.

unstrung

08-05-2008, 12:49 AM

Or for the more cultured, deep fried chocolate coated chihuahuas.
See, here's my thing about that. Once you've taken the trouble to stop a chihuahua's annoying yelp for long enough to coat it in chocolate and toss it in the fryolater, does it really even taste like chihuahua anymore? Not that there's enough meat on those foolish little dogs to constitute any sort of meal anyway...

Full Metal Lotus

08-05-2008, 02:48 AM

See, here's my thing about that. Once you've taken the trouble to stop a chihuahua's annoying yelp for long enough to coat it in chocolate and toss it in the fryolater, does it really even taste like chihuahua anymore? Not that there's enough meat on those foolish little dogs to constitute any sort of meal anyway...

Can I patent my new invention "Chihuahua Helper"?

FML

Greg Charles

08-05-2008, 04:17 AM

Can I suggest that anyone who eats dog is a primitive, or are there any Straightdope dog eaters around to suggest otherwise?

I ate dog one day with my colleagues from IBM in Ha Noi. I didn't think of them (or myself) as primitives. We were even wearing ties! (And loin cloths of course.)

Once was enough though. I didn't like it, and the restaurant owners kept an evil-looking pet cat that ate the scraps. That just freaked me the fuck out!

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 04:39 AM

Here's another angle.(pardon the pun.)

Ironically, Japanese demand for dolphin meat -- highest among fishing-community old-timers -- at first rose after whale meat went off the market as a result of the country's 1988 enforcement of the International Whaling Commission moratorium, say experts.

So is it okay to try and encourage the Japanese to try and change their diets..or at least those 'old timers' who are stuck in their ways?

Here's someone from among that community who has accepted the error of his ways.
"Killing dolphins is simply outdated," said Izumi Ishii,
a sunburned 54-year-old fisherman who, after hunting
dolphins for decades, finally called it quits in 1996 and
became a leading campaigner for the protection of dolphins.

Ishii acknowledged that dolphins were once an important
source of protein in resource-poor Japan, but contends that
that is no longer the case. "There are so many other things
to eat nowadays."

Why is it acceptable to protect dolphins from ending up on someone's plate, but not dogs, anyone?

Švejk

08-05-2008, 04:47 AM

Why is it acceptable to protect dolphins from ending up on someone's plate, but not dogs, anyone?

Last I checked, dogs were not on the verge of extinction. Quite the opposite, in fact. If dogs were dying out, I'd be fine with a prohibition of eating them, and I would reject all cultural arguments about 'old-timers', 'tradition' and people being 'set in their ways'. In my book, culture is not holy. The thing is, though, that in plenty of areas, dogs are a pest rather than an endangered species.

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 05:02 AM

Last I checked, dogs were not on the verge of extinction. Quite the opposite, in fact. If dogs were dying out, I'd be fine with a prohibition of eating them, and I would reject all cultural arguments about 'old-timers', 'tradition' and people being 'set in their ways'. In my book, culture is not holy. The thing is, though, that in plenty of areas, dogs are a pest rather than an endangered species.

A good enough reply, but using that argument, you could make a far better case for eating humans. After all, we are omnivores, so it probably wouldn't affect our diet too much.

Ale

08-05-2008, 06:33 AM

A good enough reply, but using that argument, you could make a far better case for eating humans.

Yes, you can make that case, as long as you are a sub moronic troll.

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 06:37 AM

Yes, you can make that case, as long as you are a sub moronic troll.
Evidence? Cites? Let's see what you've got.

Who_me?

08-05-2008, 06:38 AM

Yes, you can make that case, as long as you are a sub moronic troll.

I guess he qualifies.

Czarcasm

08-05-2008, 06:40 AM

Evidence? Cites? Let's see what you've got.To paraphrase-Your posts are our cite.

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 06:40 AM

I guess he qualifies.

* see post #184 *

Who_me?

08-05-2008, 06:43 AM

* see post #184 *

Your posts are my cite.

(Dammit! I didn't look up past ivan's last post and I copied Czarcasm's post almost verbatim.)

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 06:45 AM

To paraphrase-Your posts are our cite.

So, am I trolling in ALL of my 700+ posts? What percentage exactly of my posts on here, display evidence of "trolling" or "sub-moronic" behaviour? You and anyone else making accusations are going to have to be precise here, or otherwise I'm just going to discount it as subjective opinion.

Who_me?

08-05-2008, 06:49 AM

So, am I trolling in ALL of my 700+ posts? What percentage exactly of my posts on here, display evidence of "trolling" or "sub-moronic" behaviour? You and anyone else making accusations are going to have to be precise here, or otherwise I'm just going to discount it as subjective opinion.

37.78% of your posts are obvious trolling attempts.
23.34% of your posts are less obvious trolling attempts.
38.88% of your posts are just batshit insane.

Good enough for you?

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 06:53 AM

37.78% of your posts are obvious trolling attempts.
23.34% of your posts are less obvious trolling attempts.
38.88% of your posts are just batshit insane.

Good enough for you?

No. You've just pulled them figures out of your arse.

p.s. Now shove them back in. Your brain's leaking out.

eta - Amendment before grammar police arrested me.

Who_me?

08-05-2008, 06:54 AM

No. You've just pulled them figures out of your arse.

Cite? :D

Who_me?

08-05-2008, 07:00 AM

p.s. Now shove them back in. Your brains are leaking out.

Now Dude, that isn't very nice. Prove to me that I didn't read every one of your posts and arrive at my numbers legitimately.

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 07:05 AM

Cite? :D

The only accuracy was that they added up to 100. If you want to convince me you've read ALL my posts - so you can make at least a half-assed attempt at 'truthfulness' - you are going to have to bring 'evidence' to the table. You can add your own subjective analysis of said 'evidence' as well, if it helps your cause. :p

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 07:09 AM

Now Dude, that isn't very nice.

Excuse my rudeness, I mistook your post for one of Ale's, who suggested I was 'sub-moronic', and was replying in kind. Sorry, dude.

Hang on! I take that back. You fucking agreed with him!

Who_me?

08-05-2008, 07:15 AM

The only accuracy was that they added up to 100. If you want to convince me you've read ALL my posts - so you can make at least a half-assed attempt at 'truthfulness' - you are going to have to bring 'evidence' to the table. You can add your own subjective analysis of said 'evidence' as well, if it helps your cause. :p

Look, the problem here is that you demand evidence, but do not provide any of your own. You try to rile people up to get a reaction. Trolls, by definition, try to rile people up to get a reaction. I don't believe for a second that your OP was meant sarcastically, I believe you claimed that to get out from under the shitstorm you started.

Your opinions are not evidence.

Who_me?

08-05-2008, 07:17 AM

Hang on! I take that back. You fucking agreed with him!

And I still do.

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 07:25 AM

Look, the problem here is that you demand evidence, but do not provide any of your own.
What evidence do I need to provide? I'm not the one accusing anyone of 'trolling'!

You try to rile people up to get a reaction. Trolls, by definition, try to rile people up to get a reaction.

You know this because you know me so well, eh? Come on, where are the abundant examples?

I don't believe for a second that your OP was meant sarcastically, I believe you claimed that to get out from under the shitstorm you started.
I agree, there was nothing sarcastic about my OP. It was a sincere attempt to find out more about the subject, albeit not in an emotionally detached manner.

Your opinions are not evidence.
And nor are yours, or anyone else's, but that is all I'm getting.

HMS Irruncible

08-05-2008, 07:37 AM

I tried to eat dog once. I like to think I'll try anything, but I just wasn't even able to put the dog in my mouth. I did eat horse in Japan. Oddly enough, served raw and sliced thinly, it was more like tuna sashimi than Mr. Ed carpaccio. In other words, not too bad, but still I won't eat it again. The taste isn't enough to overcome (1) the cost and (2) the fact that I'm eating a companion animal, even though it's kind of a cow-sized and cow-shaped companion animal.

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 07:48 AM

Let me help you out. The figures given by Who Me? indicate there are 276 blatant trolling attempts within my post count. Go and get the 10 best examples, and we'll go on from there, shall we?

Czarcasm

08-05-2008, 08:39 AM

Let me help you out. The figures given by Who Me? indicate there are 276 blatant trolling attempts within my post count. Go and get the 10 best examples, and we'll go on from there, shall we?Would you like a moderator to re-title this thread to something more appropriate-like "Look At Me!"

Q.E.D.

08-05-2008, 08:46 AM

Would you like a moderator to re-title this thread to something more appropriate-like "Look At Me!"
No, we should strive for honest and descriptive thread titles. "Fucking Moron Inside" should do nicely.

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 08:52 AM

Would you like a moderator to re-title this thread to something more appropriate-like "Look At Me!"

I take it you couldn't find 10 examples?

Look, I've already had the 'exhibitionist' tag thrown at me, but it doesn't really match up to the evidence. If all I wanted to do was get my name on the main page, I'm doing a far worse job of it than your accusations of trolling would seem to imply. If I was merely here for confrontation, why would I be discriminatory with who I respond to?

Q.E.D.

08-05-2008, 08:55 AM

If I was merely here for confrontation, why would I be discriminatory with who I respond to?
Laziness. Next!

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 09:00 AM

Laziness. Next!

It's nothing to do with laziness. I think you are referring to your thought processes.

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 09:13 AM

No, we should strive for honest and descriptive thread titles. "Fucking Moron Inside" should do nicely.

Oh, and that would be accurate...because you are in here!

unstrung

08-05-2008, 10:03 AM

I'm not sure that I think your intent is to troll. But, if you are gonna demand cites from people, you should probably provide some cites of your own. In this thread, you have asserted that:

1) There are far more people in the world who do not eat dog than people that do eat dog
2) The vast majority of the planet thinks that eating dog is morally wrong
3) The culture in most parts of the world is to respect dogs

But, you have not provided any evidence that these are in fact true. Doing so would have probably helped significantly to convince people that you are not trying to be a troll. Just my two cents...

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 10:20 AM

Bryan Ekers

08-05-2008, 10:56 AM

And a very valid 2 cents worth. I'll admit the above points I made were all 'guesswork', or vague generalisations, and I accept that I've let emotion creep into my posts far too often... but I definitely can't see how that equals 'trolling'.
If I may. the trolling is displayed (or at least very effectively simulated to the point where the difference is trivial) by the following:

Base: You hold opinion A
You show hostility to people who question the accuracy of A
You show hostility to people who question the significance of A
Rather than acknowledge the flaws in A, you add increasingly tenuous justifications for A ("if you people think eating dogs is okay, why can't we eat humans?")
You frequently respond with "I know you are, but what am I?"

I've offered this advice before with no effect, but no matter.

I'll write a response to your premise with no personal rancor in it, just to see if you will or can respond in kind:

Certainly, dogs are viewed as pets and companions in many nations, but this is not universal. If intelligence is to be a determining factor, I submit that if dogs are too smart to be eaten, pigs have an even better claim for protection. If the animal's personal appeal (or any other subjective standard) is to be a determining factor, I can only suggest that you not eat any animal you feel sympathy for and acknowledge that others will do the same. If they happen to have been raised with no particular regard for dogs (or at least a level of regard comparable to what westerners generally have for cows and chickens), then eating dogs will not seem at all unusual to them. Were you raised in such a culture, it is reasonable to assume you would feel the same way. Saying such attitudes are primitive (or attaching other negative labels) does not prove your case for you.

HongKongFooey

08-05-2008, 11:05 AM

Is it OK for trolls to eat dog meat, ivan?

Telemark

08-05-2008, 11:30 AM

Ah, he's passed the point of being annoying to just being uninteresting. That's pretty much the worst thing you can do here.

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 12:39 PM

Is there a circus in town? There seems to be a fair few clowns about!

Czarcasm

08-05-2008, 12:44 PM

Is there a circus in town? There seems to be a fair few clowns about!If I recall correctly, the clowns are at the end of the circus parade, cleaning up the elephant shit.

Bryan Ekers

08-05-2008, 01:00 PM

If your post #208 asked a serious question, post #209 offered a serious answer, ivan. Are you going to respond to it?

BubbaDog

08-05-2008, 01:22 PM

Is there a circus in town? There seems to be a fair few clowns about!

Probably time to close this one down. Play nice for a while, and then light up another wreck like this one in a couple of weeks.

If you really need attention you could shorten that to one week. Most of the same kids will wander back in to feed you.

Typo Fix

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 01:39 PM

If I may. the trolling is displayed (or at least very effectively simulated to the point where the difference is trivial) by the following:
Base: You hold opinion A
You show hostility to people who question the accuracy of A
You show hostility to people who question the significance of A
Same thing, more or less. I seem to recall the hostility being started by the opposition, with phrases like "you're an idiot", "troll", and "sub-moronic", being those I responded in kind to. I also ignored a few posters who had made sly digs, which was very un troll-like, don't you think? You're welcome to disagree.
Rather than acknowledge the flaws in A, you add increasingly tenuous justifications for A ("if you people think eating dogs is okay, why can't we eat humans?")I've already had a variation on this thrown my way from 'the opposition', so what's good for the goose, etc! "If people weren't meant to be eaten, they wouldn't be made of meat!"
You frequently respond with "I know you are, but what am I?"
I don't even know what that means!

I've offered this advice before with no effect, but no matter.
Hey, don't raise a sweat on my behalf.

I'll write a response to your premise with no personal rancor in it, just to see if you will or can respond in kind:

Certainly, dogs are viewed as pets and companions in many nations, but this is not universal. If intelligence is to be a determining factor, I submit that if dogs are too smart to be eaten, pigs have an even better claim for protection. If the animal's personal appeal (or any other subjective standard) is to be a determining factor, I can only suggest that you not eat any animal you feel sympathy for and acknowledge that others will do the same. If they happen to have been raised with no particular regard for dogs (or at least a level of regard comparable to what westerners generally have for cows and chickens), then eating dogs will not seem at all unusual to them. Were you raised in such a culture, it is reasonable to assume you would feel the same way. Saying such attitudes are primitive (or attaching other negative labels) does not prove your case for you.

I was wrong to call people primitives for eating dog. I actually meant those who eat it regularly for "medicinal purposes", are akin to primitives. I hope that's cleared up my stance a little?

http://www.slate.com/id/2060840/

http://wolf.ok.ac.kr/~annyg/report/index.html

http://www.everything2.com/e2node/Butchering%2520a%2520dog

Any of you could have provided one of the above links, and I would've had a far better understanding of the points you were trying to make, without anything getting personal. But instead you got all pissy about it and started coming out with your snide remarks and insinuations, trying to score petty little points. But cheers anyway, although it ain't exactly been a pleasure.

If you haven't tried to insult me, none of what I have typed above refers to you.

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 01:55 PM

In the words of Dr Dogmeat;
After making a survey of edibility of dog meat on 968 male adults and 539 female adults, totalled 1,502 persons, the results were primarily divided into ages and sexes, dealing with statistics by Statistical Analysis System. As a result, those who had eaten dog meat is average 83%, among them male adults is 91,9%, female adults is 67.9 %. The reason they have dog meat is as follows: in case of male adults "Following others going to dog meat restaurant and eating" shows high of 34.7 %, in female, "following family members who eat dog meat at home and eating" is most in the figure of 25.6%. Average 86.3 % favors edibility of dog meat, and among them, male is 92.3% and female 72.1%. The highest reason that male or female who opposed to edibility of dog meat is for being inhumane. 79.5% of male and 64.9 % of female know the fact that dog is exceptionally bred. The respondents answered most that dog meat was purchased from market. The first reason for objection to the criticism of eating dog meat is that male and female commonly answered most that 'As dog meat food is our traditional food culture, it is not the problem to be found fault with by others.' The second reason for that is followed by its deliciousness.

In other words, "Fuck you, foreigner!". And I'm the hostile one?

unstrung

08-05-2008, 02:15 PM

# Rather than acknowledge the flaws in A, you add increasingly tenuous justifications for A ("if you people think eating dogs is okay, why can't we eat humans?")
I've already had a variation on this thrown my way from 'the opposition', so what's good for the goose, etc! "If people weren't meant to be eaten, they wouldn't be made of meat!"
This response is the sort of thing that Bryan Ekers is talking about when he mentions "I know you are, but what am I?". But even if you want to make the "what's good for the goose, etc" argument, please remember that it was waaaay back in post #3 that you first made the parallel between eating dogs and eating humans. I don't think you can take any serious stance that anyone else started the conversation down that road.

Any of you could have provided one of the above links, and I would've had a far better understanding of the points you were trying to make, without anything getting personal. But instead you got all pissy about it and started coming out with your snide remarks and insinuations, trying to score petty little points. But cheers anyway, although it ain't exactly been a pleasure.
(links deleted, but only because they already appear in ivan's post)

Thing is, you were clearly able to find those links pretty easily on your own. As such, there is no reason to complain that people here didn't provide them for you. Really, if you wanted to have a civilized discussion, it would have been better for you to do the Google search before starting the thread.

I'm still not accusing you of being a troll, just offering insight into why people might be seeing it that way...

On preview-

In other words, "Fuck you, foreigner!". And I'm the hostile one?
But Dr. Dogmeat didn't participate in this thread (unless he's one of these posters, but I doubt it). In terms of the discussion here on the SDMB, you kinda were the one who turned hostile first, man... And even if you disagree regarding who turned hostile first, you could greatly up your cool factor at this point by helping to defuse the hostility, y'know?

Troy McClure SF

08-05-2008, 02:15 PM

There's a difference between trying to convert someone, and getting them to see your POV. One is impossible, for starters...no need to guess which one! As for the other, most replies seem to suggest I haven't got one worth airing, which has been a salutary lesson.
Dude, we do see your point of view.

We also see other people's point of view.

Who_me?

08-05-2008, 02:15 PM

In the words of Dr Dogmeat;

In other words, "Fuck you, foreigner!". And I'm the hostile one?

Bullshit.

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 02:26 PM

Bryan Ekers

08-05-2008, 03:04 PM

I have taken all your well observed comments on board unstrung, and I will say "Here's my cyber-hand, here's my cyber-heart!" to anyone I may have offended, as I didn't intend my subjectivity to turn into hostility.
I feel compelled to point out that at least some of the negative responses you've received are not the product of people taking offense, but simply people taking the opportunity to ridicule.

In any case, extending your hand and your heart after your behaviour just ensures that a few weeks from now you'll be doing it again, after the next time you behave in the exact same manner. A more adult reaction is to modify your behaviour so that when you have a valid point, you react in a more thoughtful way to respondents who present valid points of their own. That'll get you respect. What you're doing now never will.

I have no idea if this is important to you or not.

ivan astikov

08-05-2008, 03:42 PM

I feel compelled to point out that at least some of the negative responses you've received are not the product of people taking offense, but simply people taking the opportunity to ridicule.

In any case, extending your hand and your heart after your behaviour just ensures that a few weeks from now you'll be doing it again, after the next time you behave in the exact same manner. A more adult reaction is to modify your behaviour so that when you have a valid point, you react in a more thoughtful way to respondents who present valid points of their own. That'll get you respect. What you're doing now never will.

I have no idea if this is important to you or not.

Not Earth-shatteringly so, but I realise that respect should be earned, and not just handed out willy nilly, so I'll work on modifying my approach, and try and be less antagonistic.

Troy McClure SF

08-05-2008, 04:23 PM

...I didn't intend my subjectivity to turn into hostility.
If you can get a hold of this, you may be a happy poster here from some time. There's a lot of people on this board who think some downright fucking weird shit, and you'd best get used to it and try to learn something from them, else you'll drive yourself nuts.

Ale

08-05-2008, 07:44 PM

I was wrong to call people primitives for eating dog. I actually meant those who eat it regularly for "medicinal purposes", are akin to primitives. I hope that's cleared up my stance a little?

Bullshit, transparent bullshit at that; you didn't even know about those supposed medicinal purposes before they where pointed out to you in this thread.

Bryan Ekers

08-05-2008, 09:23 PM

As a minor note, I recommend ivan check out this classic thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=111345&page=1&pp=50&highlight=omnivores) in which someone started with a moral premise and was clearly not prepared to have it challenged. The OP of that thread might have been able to score some valid points if he had taken a less extreme tack, but was never able to resist expressing that people who disagreed with him were evil, stupid. primitive or defensive (that last one, in my book, is a sure sign that someone has abandoned logic - someone else dares to defend a different position; therefore they're being "defensive". Sadly, many users here let themselves get baited by this).

Dog-eating, by the way, gets mentioned a few times.

Klaatu

08-05-2008, 11:39 PM

Seventeen fucking posts per day? Yes, you are an attention seeker. Probably just aching to become a "Respected Poster".

Sweet Og, it must hurt.

Ale

08-05-2008, 11:59 PM

Bullshit, transparent bullshit at that; you didn't even know about those supposed medicinal purposes before they where pointed out to you in this thread.

In the name of fairness I'd wish to amend that to "you didn't even know about those supposed medicinal purposes before you read about them on the Wikipedia article you found well after starting this thread."

ivan astikov

08-06-2008, 03:58 AM

Bullshit, transparent bullshit at that; you didn't even know about those supposed medicinal purposes before they where pointed out to you in this thread.

Do you really think I'd never heard that dogs were eaten for their supposed relation to sexual prowess? I never stated that I knew 'nothing' about the subject; I said I just didn't fancy browsing for 'more' information, and coming across graphic imagery. I only need to see one video of a small dog farm, to get a good idea of what happens. I started the thread to try and get information... a more precise but less gory picture, if you may.

Bryan , in the first response to that thread you mentioned, someone said, "This question has been asked before.". But did they provide him with a link to said thread? No, Didn't any of you bright sparks think of pointing me in that direction in the first place, or is it simply the case that you all like a good pile-on round theses parts. Because that's exactly how it fucking seems.

ivan astikov

08-06-2008, 03:59 AM

Seventeen fucking posts per day? Yes, you are an attention seeker. Probably just aching to become a "Respected Poster".

Sweet Og, it must hurt.STFU!

ivan astikov

08-06-2008, 04:09 AM

In the name of fairness I'd wish to amend that to "you didn't even know about those supposed medicinal purposes before you read about them on the Wikipedia article you found well after starting this thread."

And if you had read all my responses with a bit more care and less venom in your heart, you'd have read that I'd actually already seen that article. Don't you think that would have been the first place I went, you lightweight, retarded fuckwit? As you can see , I don't give a shit about the "respect" of idiots.

ivan astikov

08-06-2008, 05:10 AM

Just to prove I already had some awareness of what was involved in the eating of dogs prior to HNC's wiki link.

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10062772&postcount=24

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10062883&postcount=36

Bryan Ekers

08-06-2008, 10:24 AM

Bryan , in the first response to that thread you mentioned, someone said, "This question has been asked before.". But did they provide him with a link to said thread? No, Didn't any of you bright sparks think of pointing me in that direction in the first place, or is it simply the case that you all like a good pile-on round theses parts. Because that's exactly how it fucking seems.
I don't know why you're taking it personally - that thread was about removing all meat from the human diet, not just dog meat, and it's over six years old. I remember that thread fondly because I think I made some good arguments in it and to me it's a near-perfect example of someone who started an interesting topic badly by pre-assuming those who disagreed with him were ignorant. I'm pretty sure very few others on the SDMB remember or care about that thread.

And, sure, any "great debate" thread is likely to overlap material from a previous thread. So what?

In any case, on several occasions I tried to advise that OP ("the great dalmuti") in the same way I've tried to advise YOU - take a less extreme stance; concentrate on the firm facts of an issue rather than the slippery morality of it; don't take disagreement as insult; recognize that you're talking to adults.

unstrung

08-06-2008, 10:30 AM

take a less extreme stance; concentrate on the firm facts of an issue rather than the slippery morality of it; don't take disagreement as insult; recognize that you're talking to adults.
Seconding this...

ivan astikov

08-06-2008, 10:40 AM

No offense guys, but most adults I know, stopped believing in trolls at about the age of 7 or 8. Still, that aside, I'll bear your advice in mind during future encounters.

Bryan Ekers

08-06-2008, 10:58 AM

No offense guys, but most adults I know, stopped believing in trolls at about the age of 7 or 8. Still, that aside, I'll bear your advice in mind during future encounters.
This is exactly what I'm talking about - I've made a good-faith effort to talk to and advise you like an adult and you're still playing the role of the "I'm too cool to listen" ten year-old in the schoolyard and the original issue of the thread (the eating of dog-meat) is now completely forgotten.

My last bit of advice (well, prediction) is this; sooner or later, you're going to exhibit this behaviour outside the Pit, rack up some warnings and get banned. I'll add one of your threads to the "great dalmuti" thread I linked to earlier (and a few others I've noted over the years) to my list of examples to future posters who follow this same pattern and who I will try to advise. Maybe they'll listen, probably they won't.

And again, I've no idea if this is important to you.

ivan astikov

08-06-2008, 11:10 AM

This is exactly what I'm talking about - I've made a good-faith effort to talk to and advise you like an adult and you're still playing the role of the "I'm too cool to listen" ten year-old in the schoolyard and the original issue of the thread (the eating of dog-meat) is now completely forgotten.

My last bit of advice (well, prediction) is this; sooner or later, you're going to exhibit this behaviour outside the Pit, rack up some warnings and get banned. I'll add one of your threads to the "great dalmuti" thread I linked to earlier (and a few others I've noted over the years) to my list of examples to future posters who follow this same pattern and who I will try to advise. Maybe they'll listen, probably they won't.

And again, I've no idea if this is important to you.

Bryan, you are the one who accused me of the crime of "attention-seeking", which just seems to me, a polite way of calling me a troll. Now personally, "trolling" means nothing to me, but I accept it is frowned upon by those who believe in them, and think that these evil creatures have the power to bring the internet to it's cyber-knees. But, here's (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?_r=3&ref=magazine&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) a reminder of the sort of people I am being compared to, and you don't expect me to take it personally?

unstrung

08-06-2008, 11:16 AM

Bryan, you are the one who accused me of the crime of "attention-seeking", which just seems to me, a polite way of calling me a troll. Now personally, "trolling" means nothing to me, but I accept it is frowned upon by those who believe in them, and think that these evil creatures have the power to bring the internet to it's cyber-knees. But, here's (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?_r=3&ref=magazine&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) a reminder of the sort of people I am being compared to, and you don't expect me to take it personally?
Well, either trolling means nothing to you, or trolling is a term that you take personally. Can't really have it both ways.

Czarcasm

08-06-2008, 11:21 AM

Bryan, you are the one who accused me of the crime of "attention-seeking", which just seems to me, a polite way of calling me a troll. Now personally, "trolling" means nothing to me, but I accept it is frowned upon by those who believe in them, and think that these evil creatures have the power to bring the internet to it's cyber-knees. But, here's (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/magazine/03trolls-t.html?_r=3&ref=magazine&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin) a reminder of the sort of people I am being compared to, and you don't expect me to take it personally?Obtuse much? :rolleyes:
You know damn well that we are using this definition of "troll". (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mtroll.html)

ivan astikov

08-06-2008, 11:26 AM

Obtuse much? :rolleyes:
You know damn well that we are using this definition of "troll". (http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mtroll.html)

Look, whatever your definition, if you are accusing me of being one, the "facts" just don't add up. Or is making 17 posts a day going to be added to Cecil's definition?

Bryan Ekers

08-06-2008, 11:49 AM

Bryan Ekers

08-06-2008, 11:56 AM

As an incidental note, when reading ivan's link to the profile of Jason Fortuny, Internet Troll, I found myself actually saying "good" when Fortuny describes how he'd been molested as a child, because his adult behaviour is completely reprehensible.

Of course, Fortuny is a practiced liar, so his claim of molestation (indeed his claim of anything) is suspect at best.

ivan astikov

08-06-2008, 12:11 PM

I don't care about ivan's daily post count. It's only ten a day more than mine, and I've been here for nearly eight years.

The "attention-seeking" aspect, as I understand it, is displayed in this:
Start a thread will an ill-conceived or ill-expressed premise, even after previous threads started in the same way ended badly.
I'm still getting the hang of that preciseness needed for a good OP. Give me a bit more time. I don't think there are many of my 27 threads that go like that though.

Jump to ridiculous conclusion and/or respond with insults to anyone who questions said premise, and do so as rapidly as possible. Post #3 in this thread is a perfect example.
I'm gonna have to rein that in. I admit it's a fault

Constantly ask "why?" in an effort to make people talk to you. Since people often try to to explain themselves (and re-explain themselves if the first explanation wasn't clear), this offers near-infinite opportunity to get them to pay attention to you.
As an arbitrary line, I suggest that when the original poster has contributed at least one-fourth of the posts in a thread and his total is at least four times that of any other poster, the thread is no longer about the premise - it's about the original poster. Side discussions between other posters don't arise in such threads, because every fourth post is by the OP seeking to draw the focus back to himself.
Actually, I reply to the posters I feel interested by, or who might specifically have addressed a comment to me. If I'd replied to every post that has been made in one of my threads, I could possibly see your point.

I'm not sure that I've ever actually called ivan a troll, though.
Hmmmm..... * gives Bryan his best squinting Clint Eastwood stare * "Do I see you laughing?"

eta... nasty typo

Bryan Ekers

08-06-2008, 12:19 PM

Hmmmm..... * gives Bryan his best squinting Clint Eastwood stare * "Do I see you laughing?"

Ummmmm.... no?

ivan astikov

08-06-2008, 12:29 PM

Ummmmm.... no?

That's okay then. It's just that I noticed the uncertainty in your reply, "I'm not sure that I've ever actually called ivan a troll, though.", and thought I detected a slight upward curl at the edge of your mouth. Seems I was wrong again. No harm done, I hope?

villa

08-06-2008, 12:39 PM

Look, whatever your definition, if you are accusing me of being one, the "facts" just don't add up. Or is making 17 posts a day going to be added to Cecil's definition?

This is the kind of post that jars on me. If I was being repeatedly accused of trolling, I'd look at my posting style. It isn't about caring what other people think of me as such, but more an acknowledgement that I might not be right about myself, and that other people might have a degree of validity to their concerns.

Just sitting there going "prove it" strikes me as a ridiculous attitude.

ivan astikov

08-06-2008, 12:50 PM

This is the kind of post that jars on me. If I was being repeatedly accused of trolling, I'd look at my posting style. It isn't about caring what other people think of me as such, but more an acknowledgement that I might not be right about myself, and that other people might have a degree of validity to their concerns.

Just sitting there going "prove it" strikes me as a ridiculous attitude.

I've had a good look at my ''posting style", and I don't think it reflects the accusations being made. You may beg to differ.

Telemark

08-06-2008, 01:10 PM

I've had a good look at my ''posting style", and I don't think it reflects the accusations being made. You may beg to differ.
Do you think your posting style in this thread is any different from these two threads, which were closed because of your posting style?
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=474998
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=475168

It's allowed in the pit, but it's still a piss poor method of communicating.

Bryan Ekers

08-06-2008, 01:15 PM

That's okay then. It's just that I noticed the uncertainty in your reply, "I'm not sure that I've ever actually called ivan a troll, though.", and thought I detected a slight upward curl at the edge of your mouth. Seems I was wrong again. No harm done, I hope?

None at all. The uncertainty stemmed from me having a lot of posts and as such it's difficult to say with certainly that I never said something specific. On this board, a lot of people say "I never said that!" and get contradicted (sometimes on spurious grounds) by others dragging up older posts of the claimant.

Anyway, after I wrote the earlier statement, I searched my own posting history for "troll". Of the 41 hits, maybe half were of me quoting someone else's use of the word, and maybe a quarter were me leveling the accusation at posters such as VC03 and Valteron but not you.

Of course, if you consider an accusation of "attention-seeking" equivalent to one of trolling, then all bets are off.