50,000 Dogs Slaughtered in China

According to the Associated Press, 50,000 dogs have been massacred in China. The AP reports:

"A county in southwestern China has killed as many as 50,000 dogs in a government-ordered campaign following the deaths of three local people from rabies, official media reported on Tuesday. The five-day massacre in Yunnan province's Mouding county spared only military guard dogs and police canine units, the Shanghai Daily reported, citing local media. Dogs being walked were taken from their owners and beaten to death on the spot, it said. Other killing teams entered villages at night creating noise to get dogs barking, then homing in on their prey."

It would be very hard to justify the massacre of 50,000 dogs based on three human deaths from rabies. In the United States, and many other nations, rabies tests, and not a massacre, would be the likely approach. We could imagine many other approaches that do not involve such a massive killing spree. Whatever the right approach, the slaughter of 50,000 dogs is a terrible tragedy.

Comments

[Matthew Larsen]

And, just to head off the pass, "Guy" disagreed that it was a massacre; you accepted the premise that it was a massacre and found it not tragic, anyway.

[LAK]

Wrong again! Imagine that. Fin.

[Matthew Larsen]

And just in case you generally lack the capacity to define what you support:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre

[Kevin Johnson]

As a late-come to this spat, I'll just make a very quick point:

Prof. Sunstein: "It would be very hard to justify the massacre of 50,000 dogs based on three human deaths from rabies. In the United States, and many other nations, rabies tests, and not a massacre, would be the likely approach. We could imagine many other approaches that do not involve such a massive killing spree. Whatever the right approach, the slaughter of 50,000 dogs is a terrible tragedy."

LAK: "The killing of the dogs itself. Sad and unfortuneate. Not tragic. My guess is we in the US kill many times that number each year, just more humanely. That is sad to me too. But death is a part of life"

[Meg]

"I recognize that humanism has historically been opposed by feminists precisely for its unthinking misogyny, but, though both possess differentiated cells, you ought not compare women to dogs."

This takes the cake! Humanism opposed by feminists? LAK comparing women to dogs? Who is this guy?

[Objective Observer]

"The very achievements of Western humanism have been built on the backs of women and people of color. One of the major vehicles of the feminist critique of Western humanism involves the issue of authority and processes of authorization." From: Diamond, I. & Quinby, L. (eds) (1988) Feminism & Foucault: Reflections on Resistance. Boston: Northeastern University Press. pp.xi-xix.

[Meg]

WOW! How many google searches did it take you to find that Matthew? Now do some google searches about feminist humanism. Ignorance.

[Objective Observer]

Actually, I own the hardcopy.

[Matthew Larsen]

Meg,
If all it takes is a few google searches to find out that feminists have vociferously opposed humanism, then perhaps you should have done some google searches before you wrote: "This takes the cake! Humanism opposed by feminists?"

And, no, I am not Guy, or Kevin Johnson, or Frederick Hamilton, or Kimball Corson, or Objective Observer, or anyone else on this thread. But I certainly suspect you are LAK, because you're just as stupid.

[Meg]

Wow, you are one angry man. No, I'm just a feminist and a humanist, and someone who studied with Martha Nussbaum.

[BAC]

According to some statistics I found, it is esimated that in that every day in 2003 there were:

over 133 million chickens slaughetered, and

over 3.4 million pigs killed.

Are these tragedies too?

[BAC]

According to some statistics I found, it is esimated that every day in 2003 there were:

over 133 million chickens slaughetered, and

over 3.4 million pigs killed.

Are these tragedies too?

[LAK]

Homer: "Ohh, Pinchy [cries] no pain where you are now boy. Ohhh, Pinchy [crack's back, sucks out insides] Oh man thats tasty! I wish Pinchy were here to enjoy this oh oh oh Pinchyyyyy [cries]"
Bart: "Dad, are you gonna eat that all by yourself?"
Homer: "Pinchy would have wanted it this way"

[Matthew Larsen]

Meg: "No, I'm just a feminist and a humanist, and someone who studied with Martha Nussbaum."

1. At least now you recognize that feminism and humanism are necessarily the same thing.

2. Martha Nussbaum does not speak for all feminists, or even claim to. I am certain she is aware that many feminists have critiqued humanism. You might try reading one of her books.

3. It is a bit of a sad feminist trope to paint any man who disagrees with you as "angry".

[Meg]

"1. At least now you recognize that feminism and humanism are necessarily the same thing."

I assume you mean "are not necessarily the same thing." Well thanks for that enlightening comment! You can't seem even to manage to stick the right words and ideas in other people's mouths. And to think I had always assumed throughout my women, gender and sexuality major at Yale that feminism and humanism were the same thing! Thank you Matthew for clearing that up! How I could have missed that for so long is beyond me!

"2. Martha Nussbaum does not speak for all feminists, or even claim to. I am certain she is aware that many feminists have critiqued humanism. You might try reading one of her books."

But you do claim to speak for all feminists, and to do so you cite some obscure radical Foucault-loving feminist reader? You must be joking. You are the one who claimed to speak for all feminism: "I recognize that humanism has historically been opposed by feminists precisely for its unthinking misogyny." nothing could be farther from the truth except as to the fringes of radical feminist theory. You might try reading one of Nussbaums books and recognize the humanism that pervades her theories on the plight of women in the developing world. And she is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to feminist humanists. When did I suggest Martha Nussbaum spoke for anyone other than herself?

"3. It is a bit of a sad feminist trope to paint any man who disagrees with you as "angry". "

It is "disagreement" when you write: "you're just as stupid."? You are not only angry, but apparently very paranoid as well, and your obvious misogyny is disturbing. Good riddance to rubbish.

[The Law Fairy]

"And to think I had always assumed throughout my women, gender and sexuality major at Yale that feminism and humanism were the same thing!"

Well, in fairness, Meg, I don't think you mean this...

While the two are in many ways complementary and certainly consistent, humanism is not the same thing as feminism. Humanism seeks *human* betterment, whereas feminism is more narrowly focused, on the specific wrongs historically perpetuated against women.

Also, I think "feminism" is something of a misnomer -- there are dozens of different branches of "feminism" with completely different schools of thought. Some of them may conflict with some branches of humanism. Others will closely resemble humanist ideals. So I don't think there's much room for the argument that they're the same.

[Meg]

Law Fairy,

I was being facetious. But thank you for your earnest reply.

[The Law Fairy]

Sorry, my bad -- you never know what people are going to say on this blog...

[Kimball Corson]

As a youngster, I had and enjoyed many pets of the same and different species but I also loved to hunt and did so well into adulthood.

Then one day while hunting I had the realization that the animals I was willy-nilly shooting very likely had personalities and characters much like those of my pets, and that it was only my remove and attending ignorance that prevented me from realizing or knowing that and them more specifically.

Since then I have only shot olympic style at paper targets and at the metal and other targets used in combat pistol craft training and competition.

From my experience, dogs in particular have high levels of consciousness and strong sensibilities, so 50,000 dogs killed is a real loss of worthiness and a tragedy, so viewed, just as Law Fairy states.

[¨Kimbalol Corson]

LAK,
Our compassion is not a finite resource to be rationed or reserved only for ¨humans in misery. Indeed and further, dogs have aspects of humanness about them beginning with the fact that they too are conscious beings, acting and reacting as such.

[Kimball Corson]

BAC writes that every day in 2003 there were over 133 million chickens slaughtered, and over 3.4 million pigs killed. Are these tragedies too?

I respond: Not if we don´t think about it and just keep eating. Thinking, as Nietzsche suggested, just creates a lot of problems.

[Kimball Corson]

Meg writes: "And to think I had always assumed throughout my women, gender and sexuality major at Yale that feminism and humanism were the same thing!"

I respond: Meg, you have to be kidding. Feminism doesn´t even reach to men, much less dogs, except to castigate them for one or another claimed misdeed affecting women. The focus I have perceived of feminism is so narrow it does not reach much beyond those who study it or champion women´s rights per se. It certainly is not the broad based humanism I have know all my life.

[Kimball Corson]

One thing that is interesting, as reflected on this blog, is how Americans can become so torqued over the abortion of human fetuses less than three months old, but then ignore the horrific and horrendously high volume murder of so many other animals all around us. Are we specie arrogant, ignorant, or what? Are these animals not conscious too? Where do we get off with our hatchets?

[Kimball Corson]

Meg writes: . . . Humanism opposed by feminists? LAK comparing women to dogs? Who is this guy? . . .

I respond (at my peril): But etomologically, are not some women and some dogs both referred to as bitches?

[Kimball Corson]

In discussing Martha Nussbaum, I think we now need to distinguish between the pre-Chicago Nussbaum and the post-Chicago Nussbaum. Chicago has done her a world of good, temperimg her worst aspects and encouraging her better ones.