Investigation finds 70,000 dogs killed in Bali each year are fed to unsuspecting tour

[Deleted]

I'm not sure what relevance that holds to the post of mine that you quoted. Someone argued that eating dog is illegal in the majority of the world, it was proven that he was factually incorrect, and you tried to argue that with reasoning that, while relevant to the thread as a whole, meant nothing to the post you replied to. Your post was irrelevant and that's all the post you quoted stated. I'm not sure why you're responding to me with what I quoted above but it has nothing to do with the post you replied to.

In overall concordance with the thread, saying that eating dogs is legal in most countries, while true, it derail from the difference between the thread; source of this discussion, and the facts. Which is exactly that, it is legal because it is regulated, and killed/slaughtered within laws, and sold with the buyers knowing wth they were buying. Not caught off the street with possibly dangerous poisons. Which imo makes it invalid or irrelevant, if u hold it against the thread.

[Rennadrel]

It's too bad we don't have the barf emoticon...

[Orange Joe]

In overall concordance with the thread, saying that eating dogs is legal in most countries, while true, it derail from the difference between the thread; source of this discussion, and the facts. Which is exactly that, it is legal because it is regulated, and killed/slaughtered within laws, and sold with the buyers knowing wth they were buying. Not caught off the street with possibly dangerous poisons. Which imo makes it invalid or irrelevant, if u hold it against the thread.

You know that was in response to said OP saying it was illegal in most countries. Maybe you should get on the OP for derailing his own thread.

[Jastall]

I'm no bleeding heart. Dogs have been bred (a controlled evolution) to serve a purpose that does not include eating. We altered their evolutionary course to suit companionship, not food.

We literally created them to be friends. That's why it is bad - not some pointless ideological party line.

Yeah, so? In India (which, for the record, is a lot of people), cows are sacred animals. Here in North America and in Europe, their primary purposes are giving us milk and being delicious. Nobody here is right or wrong. Different cultures view different animals in different fashions. Who are we westerners to tell other people that they don't eat the right stuff?

So long as they at least try to give the animals a humane death and they don't steal people's pets, I have 0 issues with others eating dog even if I probably wouldn't do it myself.

[Dequanacus]

In overall concordance with the thread, saying that eating dogs is legal in most countries, while true, it derail from the difference between the thread; source of this discussion, and the facts. Which is exactly that, it is legal because it is regulated, and killed/slaughtered within laws, and sold with the buyers knowing wth they were buying. Not caught off the street with possibly dangerous poisons. Which imo makes it invalid or irrelevant, if u hold it against the thread.

So fault lies with the poster who initially made the claim that eating dogs is illegal which is a post you did not reference or respond to. Said poster made a factually incorrect statement and he was simply corrected. The person you responded to did nothing wrong in correcting what was incorrect and your argument applies to the person who introduced such "irrelevant" information who was not approached once.

[Deleted]

You seem to be learning well too.


Or it's more likely that threads normally evolve to take on a broader topic within the OP.

If this is evolving.
then im 50gigs of wat

It does what literally every other thread does. Someone writes something, often a bigger piece of text. And someone finds the thing they can argue against.
Then it becomes a flood of shite rolling downhill, until it eventually reaches bottom.
It aint about talking, learning, since it quickly reaches the point of idealism; me vs u.

[Nyoken]

Dogs have an uncommonly strong attachment to humans, eat a cat, eat a pig, eat whatever the fuck you want. But dogs were bred (globally) to connect with human beings as companions. The disgust comes from the fact that we MADE them love us then we kill them.

Couldn't have said it better myself. So true. Other things you bring up to eat, dogs you bring up to be part of ur family. I would take a life sentence if someone hurt any of my dogs.

[Klingers]

Dogs are people and eating dogs is as wrong as eating people.

[Orange Joe]

If this is evolving.
then im 50gigs of wat

It does what literally every other thread does. Someone writes something, often a bigger piece of text. And someone finds the thing they can argue against.
Then it becomes a flood of shite rolling downhill, until it eventually reaches bottom.
It aint about talking, learning, since it quickly reaches the point of idealism; me vs u.

Welcome to MMO-Champ. I see you are new here even though your join date says 2010.


Welcome to the average thread, If this displeases you I suggest you not waste your time here.

[Spectral]

You don't understand what tautology is cleary - but beyond that. The dogs that are bred to be food - are food I suppose. That makes me sad, but my sadness isn't important. That is a food source.

The reason I say it's a tautology is because I can't see much more to your argument than, "we shouldn't eat dogs because that's not what they're for".

Feeding these animals (regardless of their purpose) under false pretenses to people who don't know what they are eating is still wrong.

Of course.

[Dequanacus]

If this is evolving.
then im 50gigs of wat

It does what literally every other thread does. Someone writes something, often a bigger piece of text. And someone finds the thing they can argue against.
Then it becomes a flood of shite rolling downhill, until it eventually reaches bottom.
It aint about talking, learning, since it quickly reaches the point of idealism; me vs u.

if you read the thread, you can see the third post, the post made by the OP, states in its entirety:

They're pets for fuck sake!

arguing whether such reasoning is why the article linked by OP is 'wrong' is directly relevant to the thread. Your meta discussion now is far more irrelevant to anything in the thread and you have done nothing to respond to and argue

and the OP started the thread with the argument that it was wrong because dogs are pets. Most of the replies, at least earlier in the thread, were challenging that line of reasoning. You can defend the 'right' side for stupid reasons.

This thread also isn't about asserting what points people should and should not respond to and yet you're doing that as well. As I said before, you can argue the 'right' side for stupid reasons. People were arguing the logic OP used in judging the situation which is relevant to the topic of the thread itself. At the very least, it's far more relevant than your meta commentary on what people should and should not be discussing.

[Deleted]

You know that was in response to said OP saying it was illegal in most countries. Maybe you should get on the OP for derailing his own thread.

yar well. shit happens.
He too is at fault for making this yet another textbook forum shitfest.

[bladeXcrasher]

pretty sure I've eaten dog in Vietnam, it's not bad.

[Tucci]

Luke turned off his camera for the first time as a puppy died after several "agonising minutes."

That's fucking barbaric. What's the point of even killing a puppy? You have to be so sick in the fucking head to do that but there's not even a goddamn point. Is there some sort of puppy delicacy? Or do these disgusting, pea-brained mouth-breathers just take whatever they can get? It's very clear when a dog is in distress. How you could deliberately kill one and let it die in such a horrible, drawn-out manner is beyond belief.

[Orange Joe]

yar well. shit happens.
He too is at fault for making this yet another textbook forum shitfest.

Personally, The only one I really see going off topic is..... You.

[Deleted]

if you read the thread, you can see the third post, the post made by the OP, states in its entirety:

arguing whether such reasoning is why the article linked by OP is 'wrong' is directly relevant to the thread. Your meta discussion now is far more irrelevant to anything in the thread and you have done nothing to respond to and argue

Sure, i guess.
i just got triggered, since an overall informing thread, ended with a highly based opinionated statement, and people jump at it at the first chance they get. Almost completely forgetting about the rest.
And at the end of it all, they prob walk away, not changed in opinions (cuz noone ever changes their mind), having forgot the base of it all. Leaving with nothing changed, nothing earned. Just another forum brawl. Just another post in those 15k others.

[IIamaKing]

They're pets for fuck sake!

Unless they are food.

[Tucci]

pretty sure I've eaten dog in Vietnam, it's not bad.

Pretty sure this thread's about them inhumanely killing dogs and puppies and feeding them to tourists who didn't know, not about if they do or do not taste good. But thanks for your input.

[Orange Joe]

Sure, i guess.
i just got triggered, since an overall informing thread, ended with a highly based opinionated statement, and people jump at it at the first chance they get. Almost completely forgetting about the rest.
And at the end of it all, they prob walk away, not changed in opinions (cuz noone ever changes their mind), having forgot the base of it all. Leaving with nothing changed, nothing earned. Just another forum brawl. Just another post in those 15k others.

What opinion am I suppose to change? That serving possibly poisoned meat to unsuspecting people is a shitty thing to do?

[Tucci]

Unless they are food.

You can drink your own piss too but I think I'm above that. I'm not a caveman who beats dogs and puppies to death with metal poles and poisons them just to feed them to people who have no idea what they're eating.