Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

China slaughters 50,000 dogs using barbaric methods

0 helpful
52 replies

by techexec2

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

This story is so outrageous, I had to post it. As I work and as I write this, there is a dog sleeping under my desk who has no idea how lucky she is to not live in China. Excerpts, comments, and links follow.

Express your opinion. It might make a difference.

Excerpts:

"...China slaughtered 50,000 dogs in a government-ordered crackdown after three people died of rabies..."

"...The five-day massacre in Yunnan province's Mouding county that ended Sunday spared only military guard dogs and police canine units, state media reported..."

"...Dogs being walked were taken from their owners and beaten to death on the spot, the Shanghai Daily newspaper reported. Led by the county police chief, other killing teams entered villages at night creating noise to get dogs barking, then homed in on their prey, the reports said..."

"...Authorities set up checkpoints on all major roads leading into and out of the county. Any dogs found in vehicles were subject to immediate execution..."

"...County residents interviewed by phone said the killing appeared indiscriminate. They said about 4,000 dogs already vaccinated against rabies were among those slaughtered, because of the slight chance they could spread the disease..." [dumb, really dumb]

"...Early today, state media reported that the city of Jining, in Shandong province, which has about 500,000 dogs, would start killing canines because 16 people had died of rabies in the last eight months..." [it continues]

Comments:

I like the Chinese people. And, China has a serious rabies problem to solve. But, forcibly taking ALL dogs away from their owners and CLUBBING them to death in the street is not the way to solve it. This affected ALL dogs, not just those who were not vaccinated, or who bit someone, or were sick, or who were suspected might become sick.

Dogs are intelligent animals who feel pain and fear. You don't have to be a bleeding heart liberal (I'm certainly not) to know this is BARBARIC, HEARTLESS, and STUPID.

China can put a man in space. Why can't they find a humane way to deal with this problem?

Ironically, this is the year of the dog on the Chinese calendar.

Links:

Chinese county clubs to death 50,000 dogs
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14139027/

China slaughters 50,000 dogs
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/01/world/main1855386.shtml

Second mass dog slaughter in China
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/08/04/china.dogs.ap/

Rabies outbreak prompts Chinese county to kill its dogs
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-dog4aug04,1,7562230.story?coll=la-news-a_section

edited for typo

52 replies

by oldbag

While it is admirable that they are attempting to control rabies, it needs to be pointed out that bats, squirrels, fox, racoons, and other wild animals can spread the disease. I was raised on a farm and personally witnessed a cow (yes a cow) die of it. My father, brother and a local vet required treatment.

While I am not really a dog person, this sounds like an overaction. Do they not have the correct vaccines if someone is bitten by a suspect animal? Or is treatment too costly for individuals?

by techexec2

Good points. Thanks for your post.

According to the articles, the problem is that China does not have appropriate disease control in place, for the people or for the animals.

China is an economic powerhouse on a global scale. This is low-tech stuff. Cost should not be a factor. This is a matter of choice. The wrong choice.

Excerpts:

"...rates of rabies vaccination [of dogs] remain extremely low at only about 3 percent, according to the center..."

and

"...Access to appropriate rabies treatment is also highly limited, especially in the countryside, said Dr. Francette Dusan, a World Health Organization expert on diseases passed from animals to people.

Effective rabies control requires coordinated efforts between human health, animal health and municipal agencies and authorities, Dusan said.

This has not been pursued adequately to date in China, with most control efforts consisting of purely reactive dog culls, she said...."

by oysterwatch

One more thing. I found this site by googling the phrase "IS CHINA A BRUTAL REGIME?" That is how I found Tech Republic! So clearly, even though this is an old blog, the problem is as big as the population of that country, and is not likely to ever go away in our lifetime. Off topic, here, I still think that everyone should participate in the Olympics. It is a good way to show solidarity in the sporting world, and I don't think it in any way legitimizes that brutal regime. I have seen blogs that have 70% of people voting that it is immoral to go there. Let's keep things separate. We can participate in the Olympics, and if we have to go to war with the Leninist elite a week later, so be it.

by protiusx

This is a country that doesn't have a great reputation for compassion for anything. There rate of infanticide makes the US look good in comparison. I'm talking about killing babies in and out of the womb. The Chinese don't give a fig about human life so what makes you think they will care about the sanctity of a dog?s life?

by techexec2

Not my site. Not my rules. I understand and respect this.

I didn't realize this when I wrote this non-tech post: TechRepublic chooses to bury certain discussions, apparently because they do not fit the professional and tech theme. This includes things like "Friday Yuk", etc.

This dog slaughter story is a hot topic on the Internet and is spreading like wildfire. This thread got two postings almost immediately, then it suddenly disappeared from "New Discussions". It's been silent ever since (about 10 hours) because it is hard to find.

So, don't bother posting comments here. If you want to share your thoughts about this, find somewhere else on the Internet that welcomes such discussions and share them there. There is no point in posting if virtually nobody is going to see it. And, it won't help the canines in China.

I did not intend to waste anyone's time, especially my own. No hard feelings.

by jdclyde

here it is, Sunday night, and would not have ever found it if Max wouldn't have posted.

I really am starting to wonder about the whole hot discussion listing. Is there someone new running it that has an abundance of time on their hands?

Hey TR, do you really think that the majority of members would rather only see hard core tech 24/7?

by protiusx

I am sure Techrepublic didn't "bury" the thread. People post to what they want to. If they don't consider your post relevant to their individual lives then they won't post. Remember that what may be important to you may not be to someone else.

by techexec2

This discussion appears on "New Discussions" between two other ones one minute and disappeared the next.

From the "Discussions" page, click on "View more new discussions". This page omits the "buried" discussions. This one and "Friday Yuk" fell into that category. Then, at that bottom of that page, click on "All new discussions". The next page shows them all. You have to catch the "burying" before the new discussion falls out of the "latest 40" to see this happen.

Suspecting this was not an accident I did a Google search on "off-topic hide" and found this page. Scroll down to where it says "Too hot for TR". It was pretty easy to find.
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=96&threadID=172000&start=0

by maxwell edison

Saddam Hussein killing 600,000 people using barbaric methods?

And why do people get more upset over canine genocide than they do human genocide?

(Disclaimer: No, I don't condone China's canine genocide.)

by techexec2

You're entitled to say whatever you want of course. But, it is not helpful to dilute the focus of this discussion by comparing these barbaric dog killings to something even worse. The point of this thread was to inform and maybe to eventually help the dogs in China. Your post is not helping the dogs.

-----

"...Which is worse? China killing 50,000 dogs using barbaric methods or Saddam Hussein killing 600,000 people using barbaric methods?..."

Obviously, Saddam is worse. The USA is not going to invade China over these poor dogs.

-----

"...And why do people get more upset over canine genocide than they do human genocide?..."

I don't think they do.

On the other hand, there is something about helplessness and betrayal of innocence, trust, and loyalty that gets to people. So, barbaric violence against human children and dogs might get to some people a little more than barbaric violence against human adults.

by maxwell edison

...one of many tactics employed by Saddam.

If you don't like diversions and tangents from a discussion topic, or comparisons to something else, you're gonna' be disappointed around here because it happens all the time. And my advice, since you didn't ask, is to get used to it.

Just be thankful that I didn't post a message about the barbaric tactics employed by people in the United States, perhaps tens of thousands of times a year, when an abortionist jams scissors into a baby's skull, opens the scissors to enlarge the hole, then inserts a suction catheter, sucking the child's brains out, causing the skull to collapse, and throwing it all into a bio-hazard bag.

If I would have posted something like that, you might have a point, But since I didn't......

by jdclyde

if it would have been a Porcupine Caribou Herd instead? Again, more than the reaction for anything Saddam ever did. He was just missunderstood.

Oh the outrage?

by zlitocook

The more I hear about how China rules the more I hate the rulers! The ideas and thinking of that country is stupid and is really going to get their people moving.
But they need a revolution to remove the people in power and the last one got a lot of people killed.
What do the people there need to do to get their rights back?
Free Tibet!

by techexec2

Thanks for your post.

I was thinking the same thing. I'm sure there a lots of people out of the 1.3 billion who think of dogs more in the Western style and are disgusted by these events in China. If China were a democracy with free speech and a free press, an open honest discussion could take place. This would surely result in some positive changes.

There is nothing to discuss when the authoritarian government orders the entire county of 200,000 people to kill their 50,000 dogs.

Great point.

by maxwell edison

...the democracy in the United States under which the government takes, by force, if necessary, the private property of people, often times their only residence, under the guise of eminent domain, thousands of times a year, just so it can be handed to a developer who promises higher tax revenue.

by tonythetiger

not just China's. Some merely rule with more wile and subtlety than others. Governments (all of them!) exist solely to restrict one aspect or other of human nature.

by techexec2

Thanks for your post and article reference. Very interesting. This helps explain better how the Chinese people think about dogs. But, even if they raised dogs on large farms for food, they shouldn't club them to death at slaughter time.

by jdclyde

that bothers you? If they shot them instead of clubbing them, you would be just fine with it?

Who would pay for the 50,000 rounds?

In the end, one human not dying from rabies IS worth more than the 50K dogs.

by jdclyde

That process you thankfully didn't describe for us is "enlightenment". Haven't you been paying attention?

by techexec2

What form of government do you suggest for China, and academically speaking now, the USA?

by maxwell edison

For China, I suppose I'd leave that up to the Chinese. That's certainly one country we can't "force" to do anything, but only encourage to follow some universal ideals. Whether or not they will (or can) isn't exactly on my list of pressing issues.

For the USA, I prefer the constitutional republic that was created in the first place, but interpreted as it was intended to be interpreted in the first place, not as it is now. Thomas Jefferson described it as follows (paraphrased?):[i] That government which governs best, governs least.[/i] Actually, that particular quote might be more accurately attributed to Thomas Paine, but it certainly reflects the sentiments of both. Nonetheless, we need a lot more [i]least[/i] around here for people to rise and achieve their greater potential.

by techexec2

So you're not against democracy. Good. You're just unhappy with certain aspects of how our democracy is being run. Me too.

Then, I'm sure you realized that I was only saying that the totalitarian government in China contributes to the barbaric methods they use to control rabies. Some bozos in the central government made the poor decisions and everyone must carry them out. If the people could voice their opinions openly, it would probably improve things for the dogs, and all of the humans in China.

by gilsbugs

China has a growing concern of losing control of their people in the more remote areas but it's also inflitrating into the major cities. Let's see...what to do...Got it! We will show our strength and control--such as killing every new born....OK,not that yet but how about dogs!
I treat my boys, I don't like calling them dogs when they have the intellect of a one or two year old human. Have feelings, know right from wrong and if given love--will die trying to save you. I treat my boys better than MOST parents treat their children, just sit and watch when at a mall the next time. China, is a government out of control. OH, next time our federal legislators vote themselves a raise, while people (not dogs) go hungry, are homeless, cannot afford to continue their education. I want you to try to stop them from giving themselves a raise, government out of control, anyone???? Please do not respond by "if more people would vote", you may have a choice of a couple or more to vote in, do any really listen to the people? I'm off the soap box, thanks.

by techexec2

In my view they should be implementing good public health and disease control policy: Vaccinations for the dogs (only 3% are vaccinated now, according to the articles) and widely available rabies treatments for humans. Quaranteen dogs that are not sick but might have been exposed. Then there would be no need to kill any dogs at all and "no" humans would die (over 2000 humans die of rabies per year in China...pretty serious, per the articles).

But, if they are going to be lazy and choose to kill them, they should do it in a humane manner. And, they should not be killing vaccinated dogs "just in case" (per the articles). That is just stupid.

Who should pay? Since this is a public health issue, the dog owners should pay license fees that cover these costs. If they cannot afford the fees, they cannot own a dog.

-----

You read the articles. How do you think China should be handling this serious rabies problem? Do you agree with the way they are handling this?

by Member 25348569

It's a bad habit all of us have and we ought to stop it! You're applying Western - US? I don't know where you're from - values onto another culture and defining them as wrong according to your moral code. It's starting to annoy me!

Onbliss posted a good article showing how [b]very[/b] different was the Chinese attitude to dogs. Well, it's their country, their culture, their dogs and their population dying of rabies. If you don't like it then stop buying Chinese goods.

"lazy and choose to kill them" - how absolutely patronising! You have no idea of the conditions there, social, economic or cultural. You have no idea if they can afford vaccines for [b]humans[/b], let alone for animals that they consider of little real value.

"Who should pay?" I know! You pay! Get up a "Save a Chinese Dog" charity and someone'll chip in. Me? No, I'd rather "Save a Chinese Rabies victim" and it seems like they would, too.

Just my two jiao worth.

by onbliss

[i]It's a bad habit all of us have and we ought to stop it! You're applying Western - US? I don't know where you're from - values onto another culture and defining them as wrong according to your moral code.[/i]

Actually, I wanted to ask him 'Would you like if the Chinese adviced you on how to treat your dogs'? But thought that would be presumptous of me. [b]Becuase, I began to think about universal values that can be applied across different cultures. And, if they exist what would they be. [/b] I think UN has some charter on Human Rights, I have'nt yet read the text.

by techexec2

I just don't like to see dogs clubbed to death by the thousands, especially when it is so unnecessary (in my humble opinion based on the information in the articles). There are a lot of other things I don't like to see also (another talk for another day). This was just a post about the horrid dog clubbing that is now in the news.

By your post, your view is that we should keep silent and allow the Chinese to handle their rabies problem their way. And, we don't have enough information to pass judgment. And we shouldn't be passing judgment in the first place. Opinion taken. Thank you. I didn't ask for agreement with me. I asked for opinions.

I agree with onbliss' non-final thought. There are some sort of universal values involved here. In short for this discussion: Animals should be treated humanely. I personally don't like several other aspects of this story. But, if they at least killed the dogs in a humane way, they would get a minimal passing grade from me. That's my view.

by onbliss

In some parts of the world, the humans do not get the essential things easily or on a continous basis - food, drinking water, shelter, medical supplies, electricity. So the treatment of animals and environment is not in their priority list.

And, there are also stray dogs in some of these countries. Some of these are kind of adopted by the community - by the way of providing food for them. But they can be a menance to the pedestrians, especially in the night - owing to territorial instincts I guess. So when people complain, there are these dog catchers who arrive in munical vans, and catch the dogs in an inhumane way and whisk them away. And god knows how they are killed.

by techexec2

You're speaking in general terms and I completely agree with you on general terms.

But, my original post was very specific about what the problem is. This wasn't about strays, or complaints, or dog catchers. If you're interested, check out the excerpts in my original post, and use the links to read the actual articles I read.

by jdclyde

It seems like your forgetting one big thing right up front. If the owners are not vaccinating their pets now, who is it that is responsible for the problem?

I could see complete bans.

Ever hear of Mad Cow? Ever hear of Bovine TB? If a cow is found to have this, an entire heard is sometimes "destroyed" to stop the further spread.

If something is as epidemic as they have gotten with the rabies, they pretty much HAVE to take a more drastic approach.

Being from a CIVILIZED nation, I FEEL that clubbing every dog you find cruel and would get you thrown in jail here in Michigan. This is a cultural difference, as was shown in Bliss's article.

I was just asking you because it seemed like it was the clubbing that was bothering you, more than the extermination it's self? didn't mean to have it sound like an attack on you.

Look at the economy of many in china and ask again who should/could pay for this? I think they are doing what they think needs to be done without all the emotional baggage that many in CIVILIZED nations have. The same is true when we try to understand Rwanda and much of what happens in the middle east. Compassion is seen as a weakness, and why we are seen as weak. Yet another reason Saddam was defiant up to the end because he NEVER thought we would come after him.

by techexec2

I largely agree with everything in your post.

If there was a vaccination law (reportedly there is not), if the owners cared, if they took responsibility, if they had means to do so, and if vaccinations were available, their dogs would be vaccinated and there would be no rabies problem. If. If. If. We don't know about much of this for sure. Maybe most of the owners don't really care and this is not that big of a deal to them. That is not what the articles said based on interviews they claimed to have obtained with people there.

But, I'm with you. I care. I think clubbing dogs to death is cruel (and barbaric). I spoke out about it through this post hoping it might make a small difference.

The articles said that the extermination took in all dogs vaccinated or not including 4,000 vaccinated dogs (that would be an 8% vaccination rate for that county if you're keeping score...so these number are close but not completely accurate).

by jdclyde

The "Too hot for TR", as it seemed to pull a lot of attention.

Yeah, they have been doing that to non-tech discussions for quite some time now. Not really hiding them, just not advertising them.

Is not meant as a slight to you or your topic, and has happened to most of us that frequent the Misc section. You get used to it.

by techexec2

My guess: It's an attempt to limit server load. Left unburied, volatile topics could go crazy. Thousands and thousands of posts. #1 on the Hot Discussions for months. Etc.

On the other hand, similarly off-topic but low-volume topics like "Which came first, the chicken or the egg" were not buried.

I didn't take it badly. But, it was clearly my intent to have this topic get broad exposure and broad opinions.

by jdclyde

they announced starting to hide the non-tech as I went through my big D. Even without being on the hot list, it still make it to the second largest discussion in the history of TR.

You would be surprised where this could go as long as it doesn't turn into a name calling fest.

by jdclyde

When some of the countries on the pannel are some of the biggest abusers of human rights, it is just one more example of why the UN doesn't and WON'T do anything to make the world a better place.

by Member 25348569

Are slaughterhouses humane? Do you eat meat? Have you killed your own food?

Have you used bug killer?

Rat poison? Ah, now we're getting much closer.

No, we shouldn't necessarily sit silent but then this was one story (multiplied by the different spins from the original AP source) about one incident in on province in the most populous country on Earth. No doubt one public health official made one questionable decision and the result is world censure and "animal lovers" (among which, alas, I do not number myself) going off the deep end whilst munching their hamburgers simply because the dog is a Western pet and a Chinese food source.

OK, let's agree to differ.

by maxwell edison

[i]"Democracy"[/i], per se, is really just a generic term for any number of democratic variations of government. I would be absolutely opposed, for example, to a pure democracy in which a simple majority rules regardless of the issue. A tyranny of the majority over the minority is what will usually result in such cases, especially on a large scale. Our constitutional republic was initially designed to protect individuals from such a thing.

But in many respects, that's exactly what's happening in the United States, especially when people can actually vote themselves the fruits of other people's labor. Our constitutional republic is yielding to the tyranny of the majority, where the rules of our democracy (as defined by our initial constitutional republic) are being ignored by our legislative branch and/or ruled against by the judicial branch of government.

So am I opposed to a "pure democracy"? Yes, actually, I am. Perhaps you need to rephrase your question.

As to your emotionally charged issue of killing dogs in China, on a scale of 1-10, I'd rate it about a .001 (not even a 1) on my list of important things to be concerned about. People's emotions, with such issues, usually overtake their reason. And in such cases, people usually jump to conclusions without being privy to the whole story.

On a worldwide scale, dogs are the most common domestic rabid animals. The United States is an exception, not the rule. The Chinese efforts to halt the spread of rabies before it reaches epidemic proportions is being judged by American standards, not Chinese reality. Generally speaking, domesticated dogs are vaccinated against rabies in the United States. Generally speaking, in China (and other parts of the world), they're not. If one looks at the issue through the prism of Chinese reality instead of American standards (which is impossible for most of us without a lot of study), one might realize that the Chinese might be faced with a problem that only has two potential bad outcomes. What if they selected the other one? How many Chinese lives would it take to equal 50,000 canine lives? And maybe the alternatives that might be available in the United States aren't available in China.

You linked to several news stories that described what's going on from a purely emotional perspective. Perhaps you can link to one that, in the very least, reveals what the Chinese authorities are saying about it, and the reasons they decided to take such drastic measures. The balance is missing from all of the stories. There has to be more to this story than meets the eye. Besides, any issue that PETA is squarely behind, and the version of any story they advance, I've learned to approach with a great deal of skepticism. I'm not suggesting it's not happening. I'm only leaving the door open to hear the rest of the story.

(For the record, I'm both a dog owner and dog lover.)

by onbliss

One more tangential post:-)

I saw a documentary (can't remember the channel) on some African tribe, that reared a dog as a pet. And on special ocassions, they ate the dog. The documentary actually showed 99% of the gruesome act. And, I had to close my eyes at few times :-(. Very graphic, very cruel. I was sitting there watching it late in the night. Felt very disturbed.

The strange thing was they do not normally eat dogs, just their pets on those ocassions. It was an elaborate custom and ritual.

by techexec2

My definition: Humane would be any method where the intelligent feeling animal does not feel pain and fear during the slaughter.

Note: The L.A. Times article went far beyond the AP source. It appeared they had substantial additional information.

-----

Re:

"...No doubt one public health official made one questionable decision..."

According to the articles, this is nothing new in China and it has been going on in recent years in places where rabies flares up. Also, there is another larger county with 18 deaths and 500,000 dogs that is about to do the same thing right now.

It would seem that this method is the chosen method for all of China whenever rabies flares up.

-----

"..."animal lovers" (among which, alas, I do not number myself)..."

I expected that. Nobody who has a dog in their family would hold your view. It's OK, mind you. No disrespect intended I assure you. From what I read, about half of the people in the USA don't care that much about dogs and the other half do. But, most all agree on humane treatment.

I can tell you that if you have a dog in your family, it is like having another child. They join your family like their anscestors joined their packs. They form a "friendship" with you and you with them and really get "in sync" with you. Once you see how intelligent, loyal, trusting, and emotional they are, the idea of them being clubbed to death in the street like this is repulsive.

Having said that, I don't belong to PETA. I'm not a "tree-hugger". I'm not for organizing a boycott of Chinese goods or protests or any other such thing. You can care about the humane treatment of animals without getting whacko about it.

by techexec2

I was just saying that the totalitarian government that suppresses open critical expression contributes to extreme things like this way of dealing with rabies. Democracy (lets say democratic principles) permits open expression of ideas. If there are people in China who have our values about dogs (and I'm sure there are), and they could express them, things might be different for the dogs over there.

-----

"...You linked to several news stories that described what's going on from a purely emotional perspective..."

I chose major news sources without bias and looked for contrary reports but did not find any. They all did use a lot of loaded language and I did not like that either. MSNBC, CBS NEWS, CNN, and LA TIMES. No PETA links, right? I didn't even go to their site even though they are quoted in the stories. I agree with you about PETA. They are VERY extreme and to be taken with great skepticism. On the other hand, when they do one of their little undercover video investigations, that narrow video lens at least tells some kind of truth. Their words are another matter.

---

"...People's emotions, with such issues, usually overtake their reason..."

Please see:
https://www.techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=199028&messageID=2074295

by Member 25348569

and what is defined as "humane" in any culture depends so much on that culture and the animal in question.

You are still reacting to this and judging the Chinese according to American moral values. [b]You[/b] might consider those moral values to be absolute and maybe even God-given but they are not. Trust me in this. There are no universal values relating to animals. How can there be? What you have is certain areas where you want societies where the treatment of animals is different to agree with and adopt the West's hypocrisy.

I'm absolutely sure that there are a number of things that the US and other Western societies routinely do that are equally or more abhorrent to the Chinese and other cultures. But I can't be bothered to find them.

I'm off for a hamburger.

by tonythetiger

may not always be the best idea.... sometimes the majority is wrong and the minority is right.

Perhaps a system where the majority ruled except that a learned group of people, selected by the citizens, would have veto power.

by techexec2

As you said, we can agree to differ. But, I think we largely agree on this. Here's a parting shot:

I completely agree with you that values are cultural. But...

Humane treatment of an animal literally means "in consideration of the animal". This is an absolute because the animal's feelings are an absolute. The animal either likes it or it doesn't. Dogs feel pain and fear. A fish, not so much. Different animal, different definition of humane. Culture is not part of it.

Now, the difference between China and the USA is what value we place on the dog's feelings when we kill it. As onbliss' article said, Chinese people don't care much about dogs. In the USA we do. But, it's the same dog with the same reaction to being killed.

So, I say it is universally inhumane to kill dogs by clubbing them to death because they suffer until they receive sufficient whacks and lose consciousness. Because of their cultural values, in China, many people probably think "it's just a lowly dog, who cares?". Being humane, considering the lowly dog, is not valued. In the USA, it is illegal to kill dogs that way because we place value on being humane to dogs.

-----

Ughhh. What an ugly parsing of words THAT was. I hope I did not bore you to DEATH.

Thanks for the conversation. It was good.

P.S. I eat meat also. It's not about the meat. It's about killing them humanely from the point of view of the animal being eaten!

by techexec2

"Thanks" for sharing that :-).

That sounds like an exceptionally difficult thing to watch.

Thanks for the conversation.

by oysterwatch

With Leninism guiding China, who expects its people to fare better than the dogs? Let's be realistic here!

by oysterwatch

I meant to say more. China has 1.3 billion people, and a paranoid regime which doesn't trust any of them. Does that sound like a recipe for success? If they had only restrained themselves from breeding in the last couple of hundred years (or had the Japanese only finished what they started in WWII) and the population today were under half a billion, then maybe they would have a chance to solve their centuries-old problems of brutal practices. How a people treats animals is a measure of who they are. If you want my opinion, a people who eats anything that moves, discriminating not between the clean and the unclean, who skins dogs alive, and who treats cats equally brutally, deserves anything bad that comes their way. And I mean anything.

This discussion is closed to new replies.