CA Man Arrested for Cooking Dog and Feeding It to His Ex

[Sousuke 1,214]

Bring up whatever you like, but address the fact that a pet lives with the family, is considered part of the family and it really doesn't matter what the pet is. For some people, their favorite pet is a rat, a snake and it could even be a cow. No one would deliberately kill and eat a person's pet and claim that it was the same as eating a commercially raised animal. As to the cruelty in the case, it is possible that the animal did suffer cruelty by the manner of it being killed (I have no idea what way the dog was supposed to have been killed, do you?) rather than the fact that the dog was eaten. However, at the end of the day, your original post seemed to completely miss the point that this was a deliberately cruel and callous action and instead wondered why people get upset about pets and yet don't seem to care about commercially raised animals. Maybe they should, but we certainly should not care less.

The guy killed the woman's dog, fed it to her without her knowledge and taunted her about it afterwards. He is a sick sadist.

Do you honestly think a legal defence in the case is going to be - "well your honour, we dispute the animal cruelty charge because my client followed the correct slaughter legislation to the letter. If you convict him on this them you need to outlaw meat."

It's mad! What sort of response do you think is reasonable here?

I'm just going to address you both. This is the public forum where I don't have to address things I DONT SAY.

Of course the actions were callous. Of course the article is pointing that out. There were users above me stating those facts. I don't see why I must repeat the obvious before bringing up a separate point. The fact is I don't have to.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The issue here is quite simple. Your 'separate point' was introduced into the thread by the statement that the animal cruelty charge against this guy was 'trumped up'.

I get what you said and what you didn't say, but I don't think you do.

A discussion about the cultural politics of meat is all well and good, but not as a springboard from a story like this.

Can you honestly not see that?

[Sousuke 1,214]

The issue here is quite simple. Your 'separate point' was introduced into the thread by the statement that the animal cruelty charge against this guy was 'trumped up'.

I get what you said and what you didn't say, but I don't think you do.

A discussion about the cultural politics of meat is all well and good, but not as a springboard from a story like this.

Can you honestly not see that?

I see you being redundant. I'm not going to defend something I didn't even say or any of your assumptions.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Sousuke

[LibCampFireClub 635]

I recall my business colleagues in China organizing a dinner for our prospective teams. Several of the nice young men and women asked if there was any Chinese dish that I liked or did not like in particular. Because I had made the choice to live there and embrace the people and culture, I told them that I enjoyed eating new kinds of things no matter how strange or foul they may appear to the typical Westerner. So a group of clever Chinese engineers decided to upset my balance if they could. So, they ordered ROVER, DOG, K-9, Man's Best Friend, Chinese style and did not tell me. At the end of the night it became clear why so many of them were taking pictures and asking me over and over whether I liked it. In fact, I loved it. It was one of the best dishes I've eaten in China.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I see you being redundant. I'm not going to defend something I didn't even say or any of your assumptions.

You introduced the tangent into the thread via a statement that the animal cruelty charge was 'trumped up'. That's a fact, not an assumption. The only assumption that was made was what you meant by it. My reading of it (and clearly of some others here) is that you were trying to mitigate or excuse what the guy did.

You may not have meant it that way, but that's how it came across.

As I said, I have no problem with the cultural politics of meat, but I think it's very ill advised to springboard to it from a story like this.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Hail Ming!

[Sousuke 1,214]

You introduced the tangent into the thread via a statement that the animal cruelty charge was 'trumped up'. That's a fact, not an assumption. The only assumption that was made was what you meant by it. My reading of it (and clearly of some others here) is that you were trying to mitigate or excuse what the guy did.

You may not have meant it that way, but that's how it came across.

As I said, I have no problem with the cultural politics of meat, but I think it's very ill advised to springboard to it from a story like this.

Ok lets just end it here then. Your assumption is/was wrong. I think the person should go to prison.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have no argument with that. I think he should go to prison too. Or a psychiatric facility.

[Curmudgeon 227]

I recall my business colleagues in China organizing a dinner for our prospective teams. Several of the nice young men and women asked if there was any Chinese dish that I liked or did not like in particular. Because I had made the choice to live there and embrace the people and culture, I told them that I enjoyed eating new kinds of things no matter how strange or foul they may appear to the typical Westerner. So a group of clever Chinese engineers decided to upset my balance if they could. So, they ordered ROVER, DOG, K-9, Man's Best Friend, Chinese style and did not tell me. At the end of the night it became clear why so many of them were taking pictures and asking me over and over whether I liked it. In fact, I loved it. It was one of the best dishes I've eaten in China.

Great, you're not afraid to experiment in culinary matters. Does this have a place in this thread? What is your purpose in letting us know, in a thread about a person who behaved in a cruel and callous fashion towards his ex girlfriend that you ate dog meat in china and you liked it? Is the idea that feeding an ex their own dog and sending them the dogs paws to confirm the truth of what occurred somehow less cruel and sadistic because you tried dog meat and liked it? I mean, that's how you are making it sound, it's not really that big of a deal, why would anyone get upset, people eat dog, dog tastes good, the ex should have thanked her psychotic ex for introducing her to a new culinary delight not called the cops? You do get the point that the person who did this clearly set out to hurt her, that was his purpose in doing it, don't you?

[Curmudgeon 227]

I'm just going to address you both. This is the public forum where I don't have to address things I DONT SAY.

Of course the actions were callous. Of course the article is pointing that out. There were users above me stating those facts. I don't see why I must repeat the obvious before bringing up a separate point. The fact is I don't have to.

You don't have to do anything, but thanks for the clarification. I still do not see what your point is, and as you didn't address the points I posted, I still do not. You can clarify that if you want, or not if you do not. Participation in any thread is of course purely voluntary.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Great, you're not afraid to experiment in culinary matters. Does this have a place in this thread?

Well, ya know, you serve up a dish not everyone's gonna like it. I can make a helluva great beef stronganoff, but even the food network might not be interested. Then, you got all those nanny folks out there who won't eat anything with a face and get all frazzled if you feed them a dish containing a face and you didn't tell them in advance. This could be especially awful if you make a nice woof woof dish for someone who just don't like woof woof, eating, seeing, anything about woof woof, bad. Now, it can be particularly entertaining to serve that sort of thing to a douche-bag; even better if you video it and post it online. Then there is that iffy little line about using a family pet for the main entree. A lot of us might balk at whether that's a nice thing, and likely may go up to and touching the immoral and sick line on the nanny scale. I guess we gots moral police out there to determine whether fido was taken down for a gotcha-dish. Hmmmmm, that's mean, but point making. Probably not the sort of thing that's nice to eat, burp up, taste again. It's kinda like graffiti isn't it? I suppose that would need to be analyzed to determine whether the intentions of the graffitti painter, artist to be was simply to ruin something, add some flair to its boring existence, get under your skin, or a matter of pure boredom.

Are there laws out there that say cooking and feeding their dog to someone is not so bad if in your mind you were trying to help them?

Edited September 16, 2014 by ExExpat

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

But if you outlaw meat, only outlaws will have meat.

Wow.. What really ?

[Curmudgeon 227]

Well, ya know, you serve up a dish not everyone's gonna like it. I can make a helluva great beef stronganoff, but even the food network might not be interested. Then, you got all those nanny folks out there who won't eat anything with a face and get all frazzled if you feed them a dish containing a face and you didn't tell them in advance. This could be especially awful if you make a nice woof woof dish for someone who just don't like woof woof, eating, seeing, anything about woof woof, bad. Now, it can be particularly entertaining to serve that sort of thing to a douche-bag; even better if you video it and post it online. Then there is that iffy little line about using a family pet for the main entree. A lot of us might balk at whether that's a nice thing, and likely may go up to and touching the immoral and sick line on the nanny scale. I guess we gots moral police out there to determine whether fido was taken down for a gotcha-dish. Hmmmmm, that's mean, but point making. Probably not the sort of thing that's nice to eat, burp up, taste again. It's kinda like graffiti isn't it? I suppose that would need to be analyzed to determine whether the intentions of the graffitti painter, artist to be was simply to ruin something, add some flair to its boring existence, get under your skin, or a matter of pure boredom.

Are there laws out there that say cooking and feeding their dog to someone is not so bad if in your mind you were trying to help them?

Like graffiti? Nah, you've lost me completely, I can't see any connection between graffiti and intentionally feeding your ex their own pet dog and sending them the paws. I can't find any way to view this as anything but an act that was deigned to upset the ex but if you want to justify it because you like eating dog, go right ahead.

I do not know if eating dog is illegal in he US. It may or may not be, it's not something I am interested in.

[eieio 1,594]

I still do not see what your point is,

The point was clear. Does killing an animal equal animal cruelty?

[Curmudgeon 227]

The point was clear. Does killing an animal equal animal cruelty?

Doesn't that rather depend? If you take your elderly pet to the vet to 'put it to sleep' because it is in too much pain and can't be treated, I would say that isn't likely to be cruel. However, if you have zero experience in slaughtering livestock and decide to kill your ex girl friends pet in order to cook and force your ex to eat it without her knowledge, I'd say the killing would be likely to be a cruel experience for the pet. I would doubt that any of the usual considerations that are undertaken to try to ensure that slaughter is not undertaken cruelly would be highly unlikely to have taken place. Then again, I would have thought that too was clear, no?

[Dan and Judy 614]

I see Sousuke's point. We don't usually see the act of killing a cow as cruel. If killing itself is not inherently cruel then without knowing how the dog was killed how can you say that the manner of death was cruel? I believe the charge will stick not because of the manner of death but because the death was gratuitous. There was not a good reason to kill the dog.