You obviously have a tenuous grasp on literacy when it would get in the way of your outrage. I have had two points: 1) there is nothing inherently wrong with eating dogmeat, and 2) the stuff about beating them to death is probably from people like you, and hence unreliable. What do I mean by "people like you"? You're more interesting in being outraged at people than having any clue about reality.
Since you defend these acts of cruelty with unusual zeal, I assume you would partake of such sadistic behaviour yourself.
Well now, go read my first comment on this thread.
If you can't come up with anything better than "if you don't think eating dog is bad and doubt my 'yellow' journalism, it must be because you like beating dogs!" you've got a weak mind and a disposition toward cheap outrage. Which, of course, further discounts everything you've said here.
Have you stopped beating your wife yet?
If I'd asked you, say, how you became a xenophobe, you might have a point. But I didn't ask a loaded question, did I? No, I made a statement of fact, namely, "The last time I saw this blend of animal rights and xenophobia, it was something someone posted from the British National Party."
No, I'd say you ran to the 'Admin Nanny' because you had lost the argument and are a sore loser.
You have two assumptions here. One is that I lost, which is pure arrogance on your part. Flinging around accusations that the other guy likes beating dogs does not constitute victory. It shows your limitations.
The other is that I trust the moderators. You should be at least warned for the stuff you've done here, but the moderators are blind, stupid, and biassed. There was a good chance I'd be banned, almost certainly for one of my more innocuous comments. I suppose it makes them feel powerful to call a non-attack an attack, and pull it so no one can see what lying snakes they are. And they leave real attacks in place, on the same thread.
I speak out against the inhuman treatment of animals, so that makes me a "klansman"?
The fact that you and 4freedom have worked yourselves into a full-fledged hatred for Asians over this is why I compare you to Klansmen. Although I'd guess that should probably be Klanswomen.
Is that what you do when you see that you're losing an argument, call people "tree huggers" and "klansmen" in order to divert the discussion into a totally unrelated direction?
This from the person who brought out the "you must like torturing dogs" stuff. At best you're a pot calling the kettle black.
And your "envirowacky" comments demonstrate your attitude towards not only our land, but our children who would be forced to ingest the poisons you would surely allow to be dumped into the environment in order for a few wealthy individuals to enhance their already astronomical wealth.
So you're also into class warfare, I see. Better make that a "Marxist tree-hugging Klansman".
You've demonstrated many times over that it is you that has a major dysfunction when it comes to reading comprehension.
I have had two points: 1) there is nothing inherently wrong with eating dogmeat,
I've stated throughout this thread that it is the manner in which they are mistreated and tortured that I have a major problem with.
and 2) the stuff about beating them to death is probably from people like you, and hence unreliable. What do I mean by "people like you"? You're more interesting in being outraged at people than having any clue about reality.
If YOU had any grasp on reality, you'd see that MANY of the links as well as much of the information I've posted comes from KOREAN websites, where the people there ARE outraged that this type of activity is taking place in THEIR OWN COUNTRY. It is apologists such as you that obfuscate and distort the facts. In fact, those who claim the Holocaust never happened utilize the same tactics you do.
Well now, go read my first comment on this thread.
Although you at first claimed to be against animal torture, you've sided time and time again with those who practice it. You've attacked any information contrary to your opinion as being "yellow journalism" ie. propaganda. You ignore the fact that these reports come from Korea and abroad, and is common knowledge to those who have visited there. There was an investigation by HSUS which resulted in a video which at one point was available on the Internet which depicted the heinous acts I've reported. This video is no longer available, apparently due to complaints from people like you who would like to conceal such activities and claim that there is no evidence proving these things actually happen.
If you can't come up with anything better than "if you don't think eating dog is bad and doubt my 'yellow' journalism, it must be because you like beating dogs!" you've got a weak mind and a disposition toward cheap outrage. Which, of course, further discounts everything you've said here.
I find mistreating an animal, regardless of species, to be contemptable. I find torturing an animal, regardless of species, for the questionable effect of enhancing virility to be outright evil. And for you to claim that it doesn't happen, that these people are simply eating meat because they're hungry, and to ignore all of the evidence pointing to the real reasons why they eat dog demonstrates your predilection for such cruelty.
Your entire approach here has been to smear and ridicule the messenger. Why are you so adament about this topic where you resort to such tactics in an effort to "win" the argument?
If I'd asked you, say, how you became a xenophobe, you might have a point. But I didn't ask a loaded question, did I? No, I made a statement of fact, namely, "The last time I saw this blend of animal rights and xenophobia, it was something someone posted from the British National Party."
So you're saying that by making that statement you weren't labeling me as a "xenophobe", ie. one who is fearful of foreigners? As I have no fear of foreigners, that is not a statement of fact, rather it is a smear tactic that you and others like you utilize when you are losing an argument.
You have two assumptions here. One is that I lost, which is pure arrogance on your part.
If you weren't losing, why then did you resort to smear tactics and slander?
Flinging around accusations that the other guy likes beating dogs does not constitute victory. It shows your limitations.
As you demonstrate a continuing devotion to protecting this sort of activity, I can't see how you can say you don't support it. If you can't argue a topic without resorting to smear tactics such as labeling someone "envirowacky", a "klansman", or a "tree-hugger", you should examine the validity of your own misguided assertions.
The other is that I trust the moderators. You should be at least warned for the stuff you've done here, but the moderators are blind, stupid, and biassed.
So on one hand you trust the moderators, and on the other you're saying that they're "blind, stupid, and biased"? Gee, that makes a lot of sense. You say that I should be warned for what, stating facts? And you should be in the clear for calling me a "klansman"?
There was a good chance I'd be banned, almost certainly for one of my more innocuous comments.
So you called the moderator to a thread where you thought you'd be banned, simply to get me in doodoo. That seems rather childish, don't you think?
I suppose it makes them feel powerful to call a non-attack an attack, and pull it so no one can see what lying snakes they are.
But you trust them, even with that opinion of them. Now that makes sense.< /sarcasm>
And they leave real attacks in place, on the same thread.
Well, they have left yours there haven't they?
The fact that you and 4freedom have worked yourselves into a full-fledged hatred for Asians over this is why I compare you to Klansmen. Although I'd guess that should probably be Klanswomen.
A) Where have I said that I hate Asians? Is that another one of your smear tactics?
B) Where has 4Freedom ever said he or she hates Asians?
C) I'm a guy, so no, I'm not a woman. If you're trying to insinuate that I've behaved in a womanly way, without getting myself censured, let me just tell you this. You wouldn't want to say that to my face, big man...
This from the person who brought out the "you must like torturing dogs" stuff. At best you're a pot calling the kettle black.
So by questioning your motives for ridiculing the facts, smearing me, and jumping on the dog eating bandwagon, I'm guilty of steering the discussion away from the main topic? And this coming from the person who brought the environment into the discussion by coming out with the label "envirowacky"?
So you're also into class warfare, I see. Better make that a "Marxist tree-hugging Klansman".
Yeah, I find the greed motivated dumping of poison into the environment to be wrong, so now I'm a Marxist. You really are a piece of work. Do you just practice this stuff at home in your spare time, or do you slander people for a living?