Anyway, even if there were a contract between man and dog, it appears that contract has different terms here in Korea. Or perhaps the same terms are “interpreted” differently. Whereas American dogs generally get two delightful meals a day, all the toilet water they can drink, and a warm place to sleep (plus free healthcare and dental), Korean dogs larger than a rat get to be chained up outside on a four-foot run, fed kimchi slop, and generally mistreated — and that’s the lucky ones who someone “loves”. The others don’t have the luxury of sleeping in the cold on a bed of their own turds — they get tortured and eaten.

This generally comports with my business experiences on Korean views on contracts.

i think you need to read what i wrote:

‘there’s no contract made with dogs. that’s just cultural imperialism….’

the author surely would like to impose this idea of a contact onto koreans. that’s the very definition of cultural imperialism.

‘…and the author’s interpretaion of man’s relationship with dogs.’

the author believes man has a contact with dogs. that’s his interpretation of man’s relationship with dogs based on his culture. the author not only believes in this, he wants to impose this belief onto koreans. that’s the very definition of cultural imperialsm.

i’d like to thank you for being a member of this board. it’s so nice ‘chatting’ with you. please feel free to be pedantic with me anytime you like. i hope you have a good day.

石鵝

Not wishing to be pedantic, but you better get your inflammatory terms straight. Such interpretations are not culturally imperialistic, but rather ethnocentric.

it’s also the interpretation of the author to suggest that we bred dogs to be useful to us. we may do such things today but way back when man and dog were getting together, it was because man saw the usefulness of the traits dogs learned ON THEIR OWN for the benefit of humans. for example, sheep dog taught himself how to be a sheep dog to increase his chances at being taken in by an animal that would provide him food and shelter. smart move on the dogs part.

moving on, though i agree with colontos that koreans need to get rid of dog eating, i try to stay away from arguments based on culture. that’s a sure way to lose. i argue to koreans that dogs can provide stupendous benefits to man. dogs can be used as cancer detectors, drug sniffers, bodygurds, companions. they can become the eye’s of people who cannot see. they can warn people of a on-going heart attack. this list could go on for awhile. my point is dogs provide quite a bit of benefit to man. shouldn’t that earn the dog an exemption from our collective dinner table?