Gunsan Police Station in North Jeolla Province booked the suspect, identified only as Choi, 42, on Monday for stealing the three-year-old Siberian Husky. He sold the dog ― worth about 3 million won ($2,400) ― on the black market for just 140,000 won.
According to the police, Choi took the animal from a nearby parking lot after losing 30,000 won at an adult video game arcade on April 28. The dog was owned by a nearby public bath operator.
Choi was apparently unaware of the true value of the animal when he sold it the next day for a fraction of its worth, police said.
"The dog Choi stole is of fine breed with a genealogical table," an officer said. "The dog is well-tamed and thus did not resist when Choi took him in his car."
In Korean here. What a horrible fate for that dog. To say nothing of the previous owner chaining a dog of such a fine pedigree outside in the parking lot in the first place.
20 comments:
My mother-in-law did the same thing. Everyone in her family knows about it, but no one really talks about it.
My wife's brother had a beautiful German Shepherd that he kept on the roof(!) of the family house. Mother-in-law got tired of the barking, and one day, the dog was...not...there. There's only one practical (and indeed, profitable) place to take an unwanted dog. Let's hope it was at least that day's Special.
Too bad the network caved in to the pc police/special interest groups when it would have been pretty relevant.
http://www.chucklorre.com/index.php?p=251c
It was still a funny episode, even without the Korean reference.
Cat-eating jokes relevant to dog-stealing news? I guess they have that don't-eat-our-pets connection.
I don't care much for the cat-liquefying palliatives, which is something I've read about but don't know anyone who has admitted to me that they've tried it. Mŏn halmŏni told me that she thinks it's disgusting.
There is a bit of hypocrisy there, though, considering that Americans consume a great deal of rendered horse product. Not too many comedians find that so amusing. (Koreans probably also consume at least a little rendered horse product, at least with imported goods).
Anyhoo... back in 1990-something I had a flatmate who got tired of the neighbors' dog "whining all night" next to his window. Unbeknownst to me at the time, he climbed their wall, grabbed up the dog, walked it somewhere (a half a click, maybe) and threw the dog over the wall into someone else's yard. If only he'd actually been able to speak Korean, he could've gotten 100K won or so for the caterwauling canine.
I really don't get the relationship, or rather the lack of one, that Koreans have with animals.
What's to get, or rather, not get? People are entitled to draw a bright line between human and animal.
To tell the truth, I always felt that overt anthropomorphizing of animals is a neurosis of people who have some amount of disconnect in their relationship with fellow human beings. It's safe to "love" a dog because you do not risk rejection and betrayal, and that safety itself becomes a virtue, albeit cloaked in some really sappy and inaccurate sentimentalism.
There is no hypocrisy objecting to the inhumane torture of animals even if Americans eat horse meat, for it is not the eating of dog or cat meat per se that is objectionable. Rather, it is the torture of cats and dogs in Korea that causes outrage. Horses are not boiled to death like cats in Korea, or strangled like dogs are.
Since Canadians don't eat housepets, a better analysis would involve the treatment of cows in Canada. Farmers in Canada are not permitted to kill any calf for veal under three years of age, and every cow must have a minimum amount of space to live. Calves are not boiled to death, or tortured. Instead, their throats are cut, which is the fastest way to die apart from a bullet to the head. So the eating of young and innocent animals is not the problem. It is the manner of execution.
As an additional note, I think any foreigner who eats dog meat is a complete and total fucking asshole, and I tell every single foreigner that to his face. The usual response, "You eat cows, don't you?" isn't the issue.
Genuine cases of western hypocrisy do exist. The best example: the Canadian seal hunt. The UN has now rightly banned all Canadian exports bases on the seal hunt, but the Canadian government wants to overturn the ban. The hunt is a horrible and sick practice, and its only defense is that 20 percent of the population the Maritimes depend on its revenue.
So, as a Canadian, I admit that animal torture occurs in my own back yard. The response, however, is not to justify animal torture in Korea by pointing to animal torture in Canada, but rather to condemn both.
Good response, Samuel. I have often said that it is not the fact that they eat dogs that bothers me, it is the way in which the dogs are killed. I would try dog if I knew it was killed humanely, but the fact of the matter is that most are strangled, stoned, or boiled to death in the most painful manner possible, as Koreans believe this makes the meat more tender and tasty.
Samuel wrote:
There is no hypocrisy objecting to the inhumane torture of animals even if Americans eat horse meat, for it is not the eating of dog or cat meat per se that is objectionable. Rather, it is the torture of cats and dogs in Korea that causes outrage. Horses are not boiled to death like cats in Korea, or strangled like dogs are .
I completely agree with you that there is no hypocrisy in addressing the cruel way in which many or most dogs (and cats, if the IAKA is accurate) are killed for consumption. Moreover, I agree with you that the existence of something like animal torture in one country (say, baby seals in Canada) should not mean the acceptance of animal torture (say, cruel methods of killing dogs and cats in Korea).
But I don't agree with you that "it is not the eating of dog or cat meat per se that is objectionable." That is the second part of the mockery. The joke cut from "Two and a Half Men" that "one way for Charlie to get rid of his fiancée's cat was to "slap some soy sauce on it and drop it off in Koreatown" is elicits the desire response from the audience not because of animal torture but because Koreans are perceived as eaters of cats, something that a more civilized or Westernized society wouldn't tolerate.
So, yeah, there are two issues and it's unfortunate that they get conflated.
And while we're at it, would you call a foreigner "a complete and total fucking asshole" if he ate dog meat he knew to be from an animal not killed in a way any more inhumane than, say, cattle back in North America?
Does anyone know of a good site on feline cruelty in English that is not from IAKA sources?
No doubt westerners find jokes about Koreans eating dogs and cats funny, but humour is not a logical argument.
A Korean asked me why it was all right for a Frenchman to eat rabbit, but wrong for a Korean to eat dog. On what moral basis can I object to the eating of one animal over the eating of another? Yes, cats are pets in the west, but that is hardly a moral argument. So when I said that the eating of dog and cat meat per se wasn't objectionable, I meant that a westerner cannot logical object to the eating of dog and cat while allowing the eating of other animals. That cats are cute and fuzzy is hardly a reason to object.
To your second question, I am not against the eating of dog or cat, as I thought I made clear; I am against the eating of dog or cat that was killed in an inhumane manner.
A better question would have been to have asked me whether I would object to a foreigner's eating canine roadkill.
The answer is no.
However, if that same road kill is scooped up by some Korean, prepared and served in his restaurant, then I would object to the foreigner's eating the roadkill. Why? He is supporting an industry that treats animals inhumanely, even if this one dog or cat died a "natural" death.
No doubt westerners find jokes about Koreans eating dogs and cats funny, but humour is not a logical argument.
Fine, but the whole cat discussion was directly related to the use of the Koreans-eating-cats meme in a comedy program. It does go to the heart of one half of the issue, a half that muddies the (imho) worthwhile efforts of the other half that deal with inhumane treatment.
I would object to the foreigner's eating the roadkill. Why? He is supporting an industry that treats animals inhumanely, even if this one dog or cat died a "natural" death.
The roadkill example is a bit too out there, because that's not something that would have any real likelihood of being adopted, whereas more humane treatment of animals that are killed for food is more firmly within the real of possibility.
If a foreigner goes to a hypothetical dog meat restaurant that he knows obtains its animals in a way any more inhumane than, say, cattle back in North America, then what support is he giving to the inhumane practices of the industry? The industry itself may have many inhumane participants, but what is the harm in frequenting only restaurants where those inhumane acts are not practiced (and yes, there are some).
Fine, but the whole cat discussion was directly related to the use of the Koreans-eating-cats meme in a comedy program.
Actually, the discussion was about a Gunsan man busted for stealing dog. I made no mention of that comedy program.
The roadkill example is a bit too out there, because that's not something that would have any real likelihood of being adopted, whereas more humane treatment of animals that are killed for food is more firmly within the real of possibility.
Yes, the roadkill example is a bit out there, but it seems you fail to grasp the logic. If no moral argument can be made against the most extreme example, then any moral argument of less import is automatically nullified.
If a foreigner goes to a hypothetical dog meat restaurant that he knows obtains its animals in a way any more inhumane than, say, cattle back in North America, then what support is he giving to the inhumane practices of the industry?
What part of "I don't object to the eating of dog meat that is killed humanely" didn't you understand?
Actually, the discussion was about a Gunsan man busted for stealing dog. I made no mention of that comedy program.
Originally, yes, and then John from Taejŏn brought in what he thought was a "pretty relevant" item, to which I replied. You yourself did reply to the cat discussion and the hypocrisy issue, which came from the cat discussion.
What part of "I don't object to the eating of dog meat that is killed humanely" didn't you understand?
The part that doesn't seem to jive with "I would object to the foreigner's eating the roadkill. Why? He is supporting an industry that treats animals inhumanely, even if this one dog or cat died a 'natural' death."
Should a humane restaurant not be patronized because doing so is "supporting an industry that treats animals inhumanely?
Anyway, I have no time for a lengthy discussion and I've gone way past my one-comment-per-post average, which means I'll have to stay away from some other post if I respond to whatever you respond to this. Which means I'm disinclined to keep going, so go ahead and have the last word.
And could you possibly use italics, bold face, or at least quotation marks to separate your remarks from those you're quoting/responding to?
I suppose it's entirely possible that my browser on my computer isn't showing the formatting you put in place, but your most recent comment has paragraphs by you and me that are visually indistinguishable from each other.
You are the only person I am addressing my remarks to, so if you cannot recognize your own writing 10 minutes after posting, I suggest reading my orginial comments more closely before responding.
If I ever write on your blog, which will be never, I will write in German Fractur, double spaced, underlined, indented and what have you,to your little heart's desires.
Otherwise, you're flogging a dead horse, or in your case, a dead dog.
Samuel - on a related note to your mention of rabbit, my favourite answer to give kids who ask me "What's your favourite food?" is "Rabbit. 토키." It's a true statement, but the look on their faces is priceless, regardless. I think they'd be even more shocked if they knew that I usually shoot them myself. Foreign barbarian indeed.
"Nothing wrong with hunting rabbit." Elmer Fudd.
You are the closest thing to the Antichrist in Korea. Those poor little Korean children must have nightmares.
But yeah, rabbit, why not, as long as the kill is quick, the animal doesn't suffer...
I don't think my students ever look at me quite the same way again when they find out I shoot rabbits. They seem to find it more acceptable when I explain that I date a Frenchman and therefore also enjoy odd things like frogs and snails and marrow.
You yourself did reply to the cat discussion and the hypocrisy issue, which came from the cat discussion.
There is no indication that I was replying to John from Daejeon's post about Two and a Half Men.
The part that doesn't seem to jive with "I would object to the foreigner's eating the roadkill.
First,you need to learn how to read and stop taking my words out of context. The part you quote comes after the first, which read: "... would (I) object to a foreigner's eating canine roadkill.
The answer is no."
So again, what part of that statement don't you understand?
The part you quote is in reference to roadkill, so it makes no sense why you reinterate this point in reference to your question whether I would object to a Korean restaurant that humanely kills its dogs. I already said that I wouldn't.
The point you failed to grasp about the roadkill was the question of whether the eating or the killing of dogs is immoral. If someone objected to the eating of dog because the manner in which it was killed, could he still object to the eating of dog if no one was morally culpable for the dog's death? The answer was no, as I have said about three times, but perhaps I need to make it clear for Phd students.
So let me make it even clearer. No where in my responses did I object to a foreigner eating dog in a restaurant in which dogs were killed humanely, because the claim that such humane restaurants exist came from you, not me. However, I did object to foreigners eating dog, because there are no humane restaurants. My derision at foreigners eating dog was in the context that no such humane dog restaurants exist in Korea. You made the statement that those restaurants exist, but until you prove such a statement, its just an assertion.
Within that context, any foreigner that eats roadkill prepared in a restaurant that serves almost exclusively caged dogs is morally culpable. He is giving his money to owners of restaurants that earn their income almost exlusively from the inhumane torture of animals. If we judge the rightness or wrongness of moral actions based on their consequences, then anyone knowingly giving money to someone that needs that money in order to commint immoral acts, becomes himself moral culpable.
If you disagree, then you need to find me one counter-example, and also provide a different way to judge the rightness or wrongness of actions.
Anyway, I have no time for a lengthy discussion
Too late. You should read more carefully, and not take my words out of context.
so go ahead and have the last word.
Do I need your permission? Smug condescension.
I love rabbits as well, and I raise my own. I also raise my own quail which are ever so scrumptious.
By the way, I am a foreigner who has had some wonderfully prepared dog on a few occasions here in Daejeon. I did not know what it was the first time, as co-worker suggested the meal when I first arrived in South Korea as a way to put me in my place. He wasn't happy to have to work with an American native English teacher and hoped that it might upset me enough to want to quit (Three years later, we are now actually pretty good friends). The dog was roasted and tasted a lot like goat meat. It was the best part of the meal as the beef liver, stomach, and tongue were served raw. We went back a few more times in the following months. By then I knew what it was and had no problem eating it (I did not know how they were killed), but I had a problem with all these forced get-togethers that were infringing on my free time. Once I did learn of their method of preparation, I put the kibosh on my eating dog meat where the preparation is suspect and eating anywhere else where meat is uncooked.
As for the cat reference, South Koreans seem to forget that North Koreans are starving and eat nearly anything they can to stay alive (cats, dogs, birds, people, tree bark, etc.), so the joke was not out of the realm of possibility when dealing with Koreans as a whole. I admit that the cat joke might be in poor taste (in more ways than one), but the following leaves an even worse taste in my mouth.
According to the Washington Post, among other sources,: “Opening a Window on North Korea's Horrors--Famine's Toll
Tens of thousands starved in the latest famine, from 1995 to 1997. Lee, who asked that her given name not be used, was a clerk in a government office who notarized the deaths in her town. She is a pretty young woman, 29, with tumbling hair curling to her shoulders and smooth, flawless skin that belies the hardships she has faced and struggles to explain. "We started seeing cannibalism," she recalled, pausing. "You probably won't understand."
She went on: "When one is very hungry, one can go crazy. One woman in my town killed her 7-month-old baby, and ate the baby with another woman. That woman's son reported them both to the authorities.
"I can't condemn cannibalism. Not that I wanted to eat human meat, but we were so hungry. It was common that people went to a fresh grave and dug up a body to eat meat. I witnessed a woman being questioned for cannibalism. She said it tasted good." “
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wznO7sf9rBI
The video is very graphic and will make your blood boil over China’s continued involvement in maintaining the status quo in North Korea. My bringing a joke into the mix is my feeble attempt to keep my sanity as South Korea and the rest of the world allow this mad man free reign to kill and imprison whomever he so chooses for whatever reason strikes his fancy.
Sadly, I find it odd that this foreigner seems to have a greater sense of empathy for those living under the oppressive tyranny in the North, than many of those who share the “same” blood here in the South. What the hell is up with that?
Post a Comment