Beijing Blogger Saves Dogs From Cooking Pot

Summary is: eating dogs is ok cause other animals are eaten too. Poor guy prbly never had a puppy growing up.

A: he has family members that eat dogs

or

B: he eats dogs himself

- Re assumptions, and Mabo's argument: I asked for a source only because I saw the particular assumption in question (i.e., the Canine Crusader in question could tell from his vantage point that some of the dogs were diseased) as lacking enough circumstantial support to be the crux of his argument. What is and isn't a "reasonable assumption" is of course always up for debate (even in places like the U.S. Supreme Court), but I'm pretty confident about the calls I've made above. As for the 200 dog lovers, I think you may have misread my comment: I argue (assume!) that they were /not/ there out of a concern for hotpot consumers eating diseased meat; thus, Mabo's argument is not a rebuttal to my condemnation of their actions.

- To your main point: I think I mentioned this, but let me reiterate... There's still no reason to believe that the Canine Crusader stopped the car in reaction to the mistreatment of the dogs while living as opposed to the fact that they would end up in hot-pot to be eaten. Which puts a big hole in your argument, since it centers around whether or not we should lend the fellow our moral support but offers a reason for that support only on grounds of the canines' living conditions.

Assuming that you won't buy that simple and reasonable argument, let's dig into your point about how animals are treated:

Obviously you believe that animal suffering should be opposed. Assuming that you also think human suffering should be opposed, this just becomes a question of balance. (To clarify this point, ask yourself this question: If there was an ambulance in that traffic jam with a patient in critical condition, and all parties knew it, would you still support this bloke's interception of the dog cart?) [I'm going to go ahead and ignore your comment about "alternative roads," because I assume you and other readers have been in some form of serious traffic jam, even if it wasn't in China, at some point in your/their life/lives.]

I myself do not support wanton cruelty toward animals, just as I do not support wanton cruelty of any kind. But I recognize that many of the meat-related benefits that people around the world take for granted - including affordable prices - are the result of a certain amount of cruelty toward animals. (Have you ever seen how chickens are farmed in the U.S.? It's stomach-turning.) And I accept this, because in my mind humans are on a whole different plane of importance when compared to animals. Poor living conditions for an animal prior to its planned execution is the price we pay many times over every day; I know this, I recognize this, and I accept this.

It seems that you disagree, and I respect that, but only to an extent - because after all, we use the word "evil" to describe those whose value systems oppose our own. If after considering all of the implications of the problem caused by this lone vigilante you still support his actions, then there's only so much understanding I can bring myself to feel for you and your point. Note, though, that if carried to its logical conclusion (let's conservatively put the loss-profit ratio at 16,000 people-hours per dog cart), your argument would lead to astronomically (sometimes unaffordably) high food prices, economic depression, official sanction of PETA's more 'explosive' actions, and a world of unending traffic jams. Etc.

This is all I will say on the subject, as in my mind, this is very much a case closed. Apologies the The Beijinger for the undue attention I've given this particular blog update.

Your knee-jerk reaction to jump to the defense of the Canine Savior has manifested itself in an argument that simply doesn't hold water.

Why your argument isn't a rebuttal of my argument:

1. Any source for the information about how exactly the dogs were 'packaged' when seen by the motorist, or whether he mentioned being concerned at the health of the dogs (as opposed to the fact that they were meant to be eaten)? I'd bet the family home that what he posted on his microblog wasn't "Sick dogs on ___ expressway! Save the consumer from health hazards by removing these puppies from the supply chain!"

2. Are you going to try and claim that the 200 "dog lovers" who assisted in the blockage of the highway were also there out of primarily humanitarian concerns, worried that people in Jilin Province would end up ingesting diseased meat?

Why your argument is fatally flawed:

What is really "naive" here is your statement that, because "most of the dogs on the truck were sick," this somehow makes them unique among transported livestock. I assume you're getting your information from the China Daily article, which counts dehydration and malnutrition among the ailments suffered by "almost all of the animals." I was once on a bus stopped in an 8-hour traffic jam behind a trailer of pigs on the way from Beijing to Inner Mongolia... If you think those darlings weren't dehydrated and malnourished by the time they got to their destination, you can think again. Given China's (superb!) record on food safety inspection, a choice of pork over dog seems relatively meaningless to me: Will you have Clenbuterol Pork or Dehydrated Dog, sir?

Think about these things - preferably before you start with the character attacks.

I heard about this through the forums (Douban/etc), and I have to say that I'm disgusted - but not as much by the 'canine traffickers' as by those who stopped them.

Given that there's nothing illegal about eating dog meat in China; given that most of those people who feel the need to save dogs will eat other types of meat in a heartbeat; given that a truckload of dogs was paid for with 115,000 yuan; and given that the so-called "doggy rescuer" had no way of knowing that some of the dogs were stolen when he swerved in front of the truck...

Given all this, all I see is some a--hole breaking the law and holding up traffic for 15 hours on a major thoroughfare for a personal crusade that lacks a moral/philosophical basis. I don't even see him taking any meaningful action in that crusade, given that the 'trafficker' left the scene with 115,000 yuan.

I hope none of the countless victims held up by this manifestation of collective stupidity were responding to an emergency situation, in a rush, or even hungry for those 15 hours. But I suspect that they were - in which case the criminals should have been forced to let them go on their way, but not before cooking dinner for them out of available materials. And by that I mean: dog.