Baghdad takes aim at stray dogs [Archive]

khad

10th July 2010, 15:19

http://www.nwitimes.com/news/national/middle-east/article_a5157f60-f7b3-5125-b86f-8ec8852d6e4d.html

Baghdad takes aim at stray dogs

Posted: Saturday, July 10, 2010 7:11 am

Baghdad officials say 58,000 stray dogs have been killed in and around the Iraqi capital over the past three months as part of a campaign to combat dog attacks.

A statement Saturday from the Baghdad provincial government said 20 teams, made up of police shooters and veterinarians, had been moving around the capital every day looking for the strays.

The statement said the teams either poisoned or shot the dogs.

Officials announced the campaign in 2008, citing a rise in fatal attacks on humans by the packs of dogs roaming the city.

Under Saddam Hussein's regime, stray dogs were routinely shot. But their numbers grew steadily following the 2003 U.S.-led invasion when a host of more serious security issues sidelined efforts to deal with the dogs.Good on them, I say. People honestly have no idea how dangerous feral dogs can be, especially towards children--and especially when conditioned by environments as brutal as a war zone. Even if they look docile, they can go nuts and attack at the drop of a hat.

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/nwitimes.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/8/ba/1ac/8ba1ac1d-5f68-5de8-a603-64a5a2c8a845-revisions/4c387f0d24e4f.image.jpg

http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/nwitimes.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/0/dc/3fe/0dc3fe1a-ee9f-5b57-81f4-0b7f4232c1cd-revisions/4c387f0d40f82.image.jpg

Leonid Brozhnev

10th July 2010, 16:14

Just another problem exacerbated by a war that should have never happened.

Robocommie

10th July 2010, 17:41

It's sad, but necessary.

Stand Your Ground

10th July 2010, 20:00

That's completely unnecessary. :mad: Tranquilize them and drop em off in the middle of the woods far away at least.

Robocommie

10th July 2010, 20:19

That's completely unnecessary. :mad: Tranquilize them and drop em off in the middle of the woods far away at least.

Then they just wander back or starve to death, start preying on farmer's livestock or people living in rural regions, they start predating on local wildlife and destroy the ecosystem... Nature's cruel sometimes.

Widerstand

10th July 2010, 21:03

Then they just wander back or starve to death, start preying on farmer's livestock or people living in rural regions, they start predating on local wildlife and destroy the ecosystem... Nature's cruel sometimes.

The question is, why are there so many stray dogs in the first place, and how can their population grow so rampantly?

Robocommie

10th July 2010, 22:05

The question is, why are there so many stray dogs in the first place, and how can their population grow so rampantly?

Well, human settlements have had dogs hanging around since the Neolithic at least, they've gone wherever we have, like pigeons and rats. This is why people (like Bob Barker on The Price Is Right) make a big deal about spaying and neutering pets. Stray dogs can breed out of control. This is why we have dog catchers, to keep the population under control. As the article explained though, Baghdad has not had much of a civil administration since 2003, so this problem has just been allowed to go unattended.

It happens after earthquakes a lot, too.

Pavlov's House Party

11th July 2010, 00:19

Probably the scariest moment in my life was having a pack of feral dogs advance on me in an alley in a town in Peru. They are like wolves but are not timid of humans at all.

We live with these animals so much its hard to remember that they are carnivorous killing machines. Dogs like this are some of the most dangerous animals not only because they are often rabid, but because they are not afraid of humans. Once they form packs they will kill anything they come across; sometimes they don't even eat the animal (most of the time goats and chickens), they kill it for fun.

It is a tragedy, but for people who have to live with the fear of being attacked whenever going out, they are viewed as vermin that need to be exterminated.

Blackscare

11th July 2010, 00:26

As necessary as it is, and I don't question that, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't personally get on well with the town dog-shooter. Probably not the guy with the warmest heart in town.

That said, anyone hear of those packs of dogs (or wolves, I forget) in Russia, that have evolved into three different kinds of social group? The smartest ones can get around the Moscow subway system and board the proper trains by smell alone.

Os Cangaceiros

11th July 2010, 00:35

As necessary as it is, and I don't question that, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't personally get on well with the town dog-shooter. Probably not the guy with the warmest heart in town.

Much of the world only keeps animals around as long as they have a practical purpose. I remember being a really young kid in Mexico and being horrified at the dogs that were wandering the streets...they looked like the living dead, with their ribs jutting out of emaciated carcasses and such. Which is probably going to be the fate of a lot of the strays in Baghdad. What's worse: a slow death by starvation or getting shot?

Blackscare

11th July 2010, 01:39

Much of the world only keeps animals around as long as they have a practical purpose. I remember being a really young kid in Mexico and being horrified at the dogs that were wandering the streets...they looked like the living dead, with their ribs jutting out of emaciated carcasses and such. Which is probably going to be the fate of a lot of the strays in Baghdad. What's worse: a slow death by starvation or getting shot?

Like I said, I recognize that it's got to be done. I just don't know about the personality of the guy who does that for a job.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

11th July 2010, 02:23

Like I said, I recognize that it's got to be done. I just don't know about the personality of the guy who does that for a job.

Maybe he just really hates dogs but is a good guy otherwise.:cool:

Psy

11th July 2010, 04:13

Blackscare

11th July 2010, 04:15

Would it not be better to just sent them to slaughter houses and convert them to food? I mean the problem with shooting them is it devalues the meat unless you get a head shot thus why slaughter houses kill animals already immobilized with air powered bolt guns or by sending them a decapitation assembly line.

Well, if they have no history of eating dog meat, as most cultures do not, they'd probably find the idea just as disturbing as a lot of westerners would. Plus, they're wild street animals with god knows what disease, they'd have to each be individually screened for safety which would cost way too much money.

Would you eat stray street dog? If not, then why is it ok to suggest the Iraqis do?

Glenn Beck

11th July 2010, 04:31

khad

11th July 2010, 05:01

Sure, and while we're at it, wanna share some roadkill with me? Also dogs are considered unclean according to Islamic law.

Come over to my place and we'll have a big haram barbeque.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v223/3line/roadkillhowto.png

Robocommie

11th July 2010, 05:08

khad, I always had this sneaking suspicion you were a road-kill eating hippie.

this is an invasion

11th July 2010, 05:08

El Rojo

11th July 2010, 11:09

wow, no animal rights foam mouthed flaming.

Probably the scariest moment in my life was having a pack of feral dogs advance on me in an alley in a town in Peru. They are like wolves but are not timid of humans at all.

what happened next?

dogs are wolves that spend too much time around humans since we developed agriculture. therefore, since class relations. so lots go v nasty. coincidence?

Widerstand

11th July 2010, 11:55

wow, no animal rights foam mouthed flaming.

I'm restraining myself.

Pavlov's House Party

11th July 2010, 11:59

what happened next?

I ran fast as I could into the street, but those things will actually walk in their packs on the streets during the day.

Psy

11th July 2010, 17:08

Sure, and while we're at it, wanna share some roadkill with me? Also dogs are considered unclean according to Islamic law.
Dogs are not roadkill and Iraq was a secular industrial society so it would not be that hard to convince starving Iraqis it is okay to eat dogs.

You are crazy.
You do know dogs are edible?

Well, if they have no history of eating dog meat, as most cultures do not, they'd probably find the idea just as disturbing as a lot of westerners would.

It is a lot better then eating rats.

Plus, they're wild street animals with god knows what disease, they'd have to each be individually screened for safety which would cost way too much money.

They are cleaner then rats and since most of Iraq's drinking water is seriously contaminated food poisoning from eating wild dogs would be far from the biggest concern as Iraq's contaminated water system is contaminating all the food Iraqis eat already.

Would you eat stray street dog? If not, then why is it ok to suggest the Iraqis do?
If it was required for my survival then yes.

Robocommie

11th July 2010, 17:16

Rather than organize the wide-scale cleaning and cooking of street dogs (which is absurd) maybe it'd be a lot more practical to use all that effort to get starving Iraqis some people food?

Glenn Beck

11th July 2010, 17:53

Dogs are not roadkill and Iraq was a secular industrial society so it would not be that hard to convince starving Iraqis it is okay to eat dogs.

You are crazy.

Psy

11th July 2010, 18:02

Rather than organize the wide-scale cleaning and cooking of street dogs (which is absurd) maybe it'd be a lot more practical to use all that effort to get starving Iraqis some people food?
I agree but why would dogs not be people food? They are made of meat and from a scientific standpoint there is no reason why dog meat should not be consumed by humans, some societies eat dog meat regularly while many others use dogs as a emergency food source for example pretty much every famine in Germany resulted in Germans cooking up dogs including the famine following WWII. So are you saying what was good enough for starving Germans are not good enough for starving Iraqis? What many Asian societies including Japan eats regularly (and considered a delicacy) it not people food in Iraq?

Robocommie

11th July 2010, 18:14

I agree but why would dogs not be people food? They are made of meat and from a scientific standpoint there is no reason why dog meat should not be consumed by humans, some societies eat dog meat regularly while many others use dogs as a emergency food source for example pretty much every famine in Germany resulted in Germans cooking up dogs including the famine following WWII. So are you saying what was good enough for starving Germans are not good enough for starving Iraqis? What many Asian societies including Japan eats regularly (and considered a delicacy) it not people food in Iraq?

For fuck's sake dude, why is this such a big deal for you that they eat these dogs?

Psy

11th July 2010, 18:23

For fuck's sake dude, why is this such a big deal for you that they eat these dogs?
Because the dogs are a nuance (understatement) , Iraqis are starving and the two could cancel each other out. Even if Iraqis rater eat other food they can export dog meat to countries that do eat dogs in exchange for food they do want.

Robocommie

11th July 2010, 18:25

Because the dogs are a nuance (understatement) , Iraqis are starving and the two could cancel each other out. Even if Iraqis rater eat other food they can export dog meat to countries that do eat dogs in exchange for food they do want.

This is hilarious. It's even funnier if you're serious. I just realized you're the guy who started the forklift thread, too. Good times, man.

PS: You really are crazy.

Psy

11th July 2010, 18:40

This is hilarious. It's even funnier if you're serious. I just realized you're the guy who started the forklift thread, too. Good times, man.

PS: You really are crazy.
So it is crazy to produce a commodity that you view as useless to exchange to another culture that views it as a delicacy thus willing exchange money for your commodity?

Why would it be crazy for Iraq to export dog meat to say Japan that already imports dog meat from China? The only issue would be Iraq competing with established exporters of dog meat like China that has large fixed capital to mass produce and package dog meat but Iraq could have an advantage as Iraq had a problem with wild dogs thus Iraq could sell the meat cheaper since they want to get rid of the wild dogs so could sell the dog meat even at a loss as a way to subsidize part of the cost of dealing with the wild dogs.

Meaning they could go to Japanese importers of dog meat and say "what ever China is offering we can sell you twice the meat for half the price (and half the quality but Iraq would not mention that)".

Outinleftfield

11th July 2010, 19:00

It doesnt make sense to let all that meat go to waste when people are starving. And most likely it won't. The most desperate Iraqis will scavenge the dog carcasses from the streets or from dumpsters. Wouldn't it be better if it was cleaned and processed first to get rid of germs?

EDIT: And why not do this with euthanized dogs from animal shelters? A lot of people are disgusted by dog meat because it involves killing dogs, but we kill dogs already. The dog doesn't care what happens to its flesh after it dies so if its going to die anyways we might as well eat it.

Robocommie

11th July 2010, 19:05

"If it's meat, we should eat it."

Is that it? Hell, why not see if we can salvage a few dinners from the morgue? It's just protein.

Psy, why don't you start up a side business of your own if you think this is so smart? Go ahead and start hunting the stray dogs in your neighborhood and sell the meat on the internet. It'd be a good way of paying off those bills at the end of the month I'm sure. And you'd be feeding hungry kids in Japan!

RedStarOverChina

11th July 2010, 19:11

:lol:Some one has obviously never met a Muslim person.

Though the Quran did say it's OK to eat non-Halal food when you're deperate, I don't think people would go that far.

I don't see anything wrong with what the Iraqis are doing; then again there's no real debate about that here, really.

Psy

11th July 2010, 19:23

"If it's meat, we should eat it."

Is that it? Hell, why not see if we can salvage a few dinners from the morgue? It's just protein.
If dog meat is good enough for Japanese capitalists (Japan imports around 5 metric tonnes of dog meat from China every year) why would it not be good enough for Iraqis? Eastern Europeans consume dog fat in the form of smalec thus they consume a byproduct of the dog meat industry.

So basically you saying only American eating habits are right, any society that eats food that Americans think are taboo are crazy.

Psy

11th July 2010, 19:24

:lol:Some one has obviously never met a Muslim person.

Though the Quran did say it's OK to eat non-Halal food when you're deperate, I don't think people would go that far.

And what would be the problem for Muslims producing non-Halal food for export?

Robocommie

11th July 2010, 19:33

So basically you saying only American eating habits are right, any society that eats food that Americans think are taboo are crazy.

No, I don't. I think expecting people to eat things that they personally would see as garbage (like expecting Iraqis to eat dogmeat) is ridiculous and I also think you overestimate the practicalities of exporting dogs from the street, which are also certainly unsanitary and unsafe, to sell to Japan or anywhere else when they have sources of dogmeat produced intentionally for domestic consumption in China.

And with this post, I have already humored your argument more than it deserved.

Psy

11th July 2010, 20:02

No, I don't. I think expecting people to eat things that they personally would see as garbage (like expecting Iraqis to eat dogmeat) is ridiculous

Again Germans got over it many times during their famines.

and I also think you overestimate the practicalities of exporting dogs from the street, which are also certainly unsanitary and unsafe, to sell to Japan or anywhere else when they have sources of dogmeat produced intentionally for domestic consumption in China.

If you are exporting dogs (as apposed to exporting dog carcasses) you'd be exporting them to capitalists that can transform them into a commodity like to Poland to transform them into dog smalec (dog lard) or China to transform them to dog meat meaning Iraq would be exporting them as live stock.

Iraq could export dog smalec (not only a customary food of Eastern Euopreans but Romanis (gypsies) believe dog smalec has medicinal properties, it probably a placebo but they still consume it as medican) and dog meat cutting out the middle man if Iraq could find a market for the quality Iraq can produce with its devistated industrial level (easier with dog smalec as your only dealing with the dog's fat).

Alternatively Iraq could consume dog smalec and dog meat itself like the Germans did the many times they faced famine.

Let me put it this way if we were stranded on a deserted island full of wild dogs and the suggestion was made to cook the wild dogs up would you object?

Robocommie

11th July 2010, 20:18

Let me put it this way if we were stranded on a deserted island full of wild dogs and the suggestion was made to cook the wild dogs up would you object?

I'd make a radio out of coconuts and order a pizza. Then me, Gilligan, and the Skipper would get drunk.

Os Cangaceiros

11th July 2010, 20:22

This thread became really weird since I last posted.

khad

11th July 2010, 22:06

Psy

11th July 2010, 22:23

It's just Psy, the resident loser, the same kid who thought it was a great idea to retool the entire force in Afghanistan as leg infantry.

Because humping 40kg for 40km on jagged terrain is going to give you that much of an advantage over insurgents.
That was using garrison infantry like what Finland successfully used to defend against the USSR as their troops didn't have to move as their where so heavily fortified with machine gun nests and bunkerized heavy cannons they stopped heavy KV-1s dead in their tracks.

But that is a different topic.

TheSamsquatch

11th July 2010, 22:37

Relocate them. This is awful!

Blackscare

11th July 2010, 22:55

So basically you saying only American eating habits are right, any society that eats food that Americans think are taboo are crazy.

No, you're basically saying that we should force Iraqis to eat something they would find disgusting. All the dogs are there, after all, don't you think they would have started frying em up if they felt like it? So if they haven't decided that that is something they want to do, how do you suggest that we impose it upon them?

I've got an idea, how about you (and anyone nice and cozy in the first world thinking this is a good idea), just send your food to Iraq in exchange for dog carcasses?

K, crazymccrazycrazy?

Psy

11th July 2010, 23:59

No, you're basically saying that we should force Iraqis to eat something they would find disgusting. All the dogs are there, after all, don't you think they would have started frying em up if they felt like it? So if they haven't decided that that is something they want to do, how do you suggest that we impose it upon them?

You for starters you could feed them to the soldiers, hey soldiers are expect to stomach much worse then dog stew (and most Americans troops probably wouldn't realize you can make lard out of dog fat thus you could at least keep using dog lard a secret) and just feeding the occupying forces would deplete the wild dog population rapidly.

Hell most Iraqis probably would not realize they are eating dog lard and just be happy they suddenly have a large supply of lard in stores. And the dog meat could be sold as mystery meat where it is grounded up and mixed with other meats and simply labeled it meat. (capitalists already do this in other markets so why not in Iraq).

I've got an idea, how about you (and anyone nice and cozy in the first world thinking this is a good idea), just send your food to Iraq in exchange for dog carcasses?

K, crazymccrazycrazy?
And if they refuse to eat that? I mean if they refuse to eat dog stew they are getting more picky then the homeless of the USA where the worse off eat rodents.

gorillafuck

12th July 2010, 00:06

Iraq doesn't have a history of eating dog meat so people there would not eat dog meat. Just like in the United States.

This reason and this reason alone are enough to not start feeding Iraqis dog meat.

Psy

12th July 2010, 00:32

Iraq doesn't have a history of eating dog meat so people there would not eat dog meat. Just like in the United States.

Americans ate dogs up to the 19th century as native tribes ate dog some tribes even considered it a delicacy thus these tribes served it to settlers as it was the tribe's finest food.

This reason and this reason alone are enough to not start feeding Iraqis dog meat.
No it is not as there is no scientific reason why Iraqis can't be sustained by dogs.

Andropov

12th July 2010, 00:40

That said, anyone hear of those packs of dogs (or wolves, I forget) in Russia, that have evolved into three different kinds of social group? The smartest ones can get around the Moscow subway system and board the proper trains by smell alone.
That sounds fascianting, do you have a link there?
And BTW Psy you are actually a mentalist, seriously get yourself sorted.

Psy

12th July 2010, 00:43

And BTW Psy you are actually a mentalist, seriously get yourself sorted.
You do know mentalist is a someone with highly developed mental or intuitive abilities (ie mind reader).

gorillafuck

12th July 2010, 01:11

Americans ate dogs up to the 19th century as native tribes ate dog some tribes even considered it a delicacy thus these tribes served it to settlers as it was the tribe's finest food.

No it is not as there is no scientific reason why Iraqis can't be sustained by dogs.
Iraqis don't want to eat dogs. They want food they are familiar with or at least somewhat familiar with, that's how people are. How about they eat what they want?

Andropov

12th July 2010, 01:12

You do know mentalist is a someone with highly developed mental or intuitive abilities (ie mind reader).
http://southparkstudios-intl.mtvnimages.com/shared/sps/media/images/813/813_image_23.jpg

Indeed, someone full of shit.

Blackscare

12th July 2010, 01:22

Hell most Iraqis probably would not realize they are eating dog lard and just be happy they suddenly have a large supply of lard in stores. And the dog meat could be sold as mystery meat where it is grounded up and mixed with other meats and simply labeled it meat. (capitalists already do this in other markets so why not in Iraq).
My, what a condescending, arrogant prick you are.

Just lie to the people who have had their homeland invaded, their neighborhoods bombed to shit, and their families killed. Trick them into eating dog because the people who did all this to them can't be bothered to offer some real food.

The fucking least the US and it's patsies can do is feed every Iraqi some quality food that hasn't been scavenged off the street.

Psy

12th July 2010, 01:54

Iraqis don't want to eat dogs. They want food they are familiar with or at least somewhat familiar with, that's how people are. How about they eat what they want?
With what means of production? Their infrastructure is in ruins. Iraqis should adapt to their new enviorment in order to survive.

My, what a condescending, arrogant prick you are.

Just lie to the people who have had their homeland invaded, their neighborhoods bombed to shit, and their families killed. Trick them into eating dog because the people who did all this to them can't be bothered to offer some real food.

Dog is real food from a scientific point of view, thus tricking them to eat dog is no different then doctors tricking a patient to take a placebo.

The fucking least the US and it's patsies can do is feed every Iraqi some quality food that hasn't been scavenged off the street.
You do know most Africans would love to have access to Iraq's wild dogs? Hell there are homeless Americans that would also like dog stew. The US is not going to feed Iraq as they don't care, and if Iraqis can't even stomach dog meat they will have no change of facing the hardships revolution will bring.

Robocommie

12th July 2010, 02:00

Psy

12th July 2010, 02:18

It's amazing how far out you can extend this argument, supported solely by the weight of your own ridiculous argument. You started off with an argument that it would perhaps be more beneficial to make use of these dogs as meat, and now it's become a situation where the Iraqis MUST eat dog or die. You're an idiot.
No I'm not saying they MUST. Simply that in their situation it is not logical to turn town any food that actually is beneficial in the sense it fuels their body. It is like a thirsty man in the desert not wanting to drink cactus water as he thinks it is taboo.

If they can get other sources of food fine but then there are other humans on the planet that also would find those dogs beneficial as food.

this is an invasion

12th July 2010, 02:30

If dog meat is good enough for Japanese capitalists (Japan imports around 5 metric tonnes of dog meat from China every year) why would it not be good enough for Iraqis? Eastern Europeans consume dog fat in the form of smalec thus they consume a byproduct of the dog meat industry.

So basically you saying only American eating habits are right, any society that eats food that Americans think are taboo are crazy.

No we're saying the idea of rounding up stray dogs and grinding them into food is crazy as fuck and sounds like something out of a dystopian movie about the future.

Psy

12th July 2010, 02:34

No we're saying the idea of rounding up stray dogs and grinding them into food is crazy as fuck and sounds like something out of a dystopian movie about the future.
But why? It already is done and has been done for centuries, not to mention there is not scientific reason why dogs should not be part of a human's diet thus simply killing strays would be a waste of food when there is hunger in the world.

gorillafuck

12th July 2010, 02:58

With what means of production? Their infrastructure is in ruins. Iraqis should adapt to their new enviorment in order to survive.
Use the tools that would be used to make dog meat as tools to make food that they eat. That seems pretty obvious.

Iraqis have never eaten dog. They want food that they want. Therefore, they should get food that they want. Food that they want does not include dog. How much simpler could this be?

Psy

12th July 2010, 03:12

Use the tools that would be used to make dog meat as tools to make food that they eat. That seems pretty obvious.

The tools to turn wild dogs into meat and lard is not the same tools to raise domesticated animals and grow crops.

Iraqis have never eaten dog. They want food that they want. Therefore, they should get food that they want. Food that they want does not include dog. How much simpler could this be?[/QUOTE]
Then export dogs in exchange for food they want.

Robocommie

12th July 2010, 05:31

For fuck's sake, these dogs are not domestic food animals, these are stray dogs that have overpopulated from eating trash - they fit the criteria of vermin.

You make this argument that the US is not going to get Iraqis the food they need to stave off whatever hunger they're facing - and while this may be true, you're completely overlooking the amount of bureaucracy and infrastructure that would be required not only for the large scale capturing and slaughtering of thousands of stray dogs for meat - something which the citizens of Baghdad would find repulsive anyhow - but then also to refrigerate this dog meat, market it, package it, and ship it out to wherever. This is, by the way, assuming they can even find someone who is willing to import dog meat from mangy, feral street dogs to then sell for human consumption.

In short, if you're already assuming that Iraq doesn't have sufficient resources to import grain, then they certainly won't have the resources to build an entirely new industry overnight. It's ridiculous.

Particularly so given that these animals are not a natural resource - they represent a breakdown in civil government. They're more like busted water mains or rolling black-outs, than deer living in the forest or buffalo roaming the plains. The dog meat eaten in Asia is generally from animals raised specifically for meat - they don't go chasing stray dogs with a hatchet.

this is an invasion

12th July 2010, 06:28

Robocommie

12th July 2010, 07:09

It's particularly weird because I expected this thread to turn into an animal rights flame war. Not this. Least of all this.

Guerrilla22

12th July 2010, 09:19

The life of a stray animal in any country is awful, especially in the developing world where they tend to number in the millions inside large cities. It is a sad way to go but in the end it is better than letting them slowly starve to death or die from disease. Spay or neuter your pet people and help prevent the deaths of animals.

Psy

12th July 2010, 14:54

khad

12th July 2010, 18:03

psy, get a life.

The only way you can fool yourself into thinking you know shit about anything is if you keep your damn mouth shut.

Os Cangaceiros

12th July 2010, 18:11

But then where would our RevLeft meme's come from?!

I fully expect dogmeat kebabs to become one of them.

Psy

12th July 2010, 18:23

psy, get a life.

The only way you can fool yourself into thinking you know shit about anything is if you keep your damn mouth shut.

So you know poverty? There are homeless Americans that eat rodents and you think Iraqis eating wild dog meat is crazy? Like I said it is historical fact that Germans turned to wild dogs when German butchers had nothing else during times of famine, it was either make dog meat and dog lard or close shop and become a beggar.

You guys have no material understanding of the situation, yes wild dogs are of sub-par quality but it not like butchers in Iraq can currently get quality livestock and there is much worse substitutes then wild dog like rodents.

Obs

12th July 2010, 18:56

So you know poverty? There are homeless Americans that eat rodents and you think Iraqis eating wild dog meat is crazy? Like I said it is historical fact that Germans turned to wild dogs when German butchers had nothing else during times of famine, it was either make dog meat and dog lard or close shop and become a beggar.

You guys have no material understanding of the situation, yes wild dogs are of sub-par quality but it not like butchers in Iraq can currently get quality livestock and there is much worse substitutes then wild dog like rodents.
You realise your argument boils down to "some people have to eat rodents, therefore Iraqis should eat dog", right?

Robocommie

12th July 2010, 18:58

You guys have no material understanding of the situation, yes wild dogs are of sub-par quality but it not like butchers in Iraq can currently get quality livestock and there is much worse substitutes then wild dog like rodents.

Man, how much do YOU know about the food situation in Iraq?

Also, I want to point out, as an American of German descent, that saying, "Germans will eat it." don't mean shit. Germans will also eat black pudding and head cheese. All due respect, but my ancestors and cousins are gross.

Wanted Man

12th July 2010, 19:09

This is a brilliant thread.

Devrim

12th July 2010, 19:15

Also, I want to point out, as an American of German descent, that saying, "Germans will eat it." don't mean shit. Germans will also eat black pudding and head cheese. All due respect, but my ancestors and cousins are gross.

I think that black pudding is pretty good. I have eaten dog too in the Czech Republic. It is OK.

It doesn't mean I want to impose it on the people of Baghdad though.

Even if people were to eat them, according to the article there are about 1.25 million stray dogs, and about 8 million people in Baghdad. That means it would be one dog for every six people. It would feed people for less than a week. It is not at all a solution to the problems of people in Baghdad.

Devrim

Psy

12th July 2010, 19:15

You realise your argument boils down to "some people have to eat rodents, therefore Iraqis should eat dog", right?
No my argument is they could do much worse.

Man, how much do YOU know about the food situation in Iraq?
The agricultural industry in Iraq has collapsed due to soil and water containment caused by the shock and awe phase of the war, that and irrigation is now practically non-extant dramatically reducing the amount of viable farm land in Iraq. The occupying powers are still simply talking about how to even start going about rebuilding Iraq's agricultural industry.

Psy

12th July 2010, 19:25

I think that black pudding is pretty good. I have eaten dog too in the Czech Republic. It is OK.

It doesn't mean I want to impose it on the people of Baghdad though.

Even if people were to eat them, according to the article there are about 1.25 million stray dogs, and about 8 million people in Baghdad. That means it would be one dog for every six people. It would feed people for less than a week. It is not at all a solution to the problems of people in Baghdad.

Devrim
Right it would be only a stop gap measure.

Wanted Man

12th July 2010, 19:35

Black pudding is nice. I've never eaten head cheese or dog though. Obviously, you can't make people eat dog if they don't want to. Of course, one gets less picky during severe famines, but you wouldn't wish that on anyone just for utilitarian reasons (doing something useful with stray dogs that you kill).

Personally, I don't have much of a problem with food that others may consider "weird". Certainly, most people I know think haggis is "weird", yet it is eaten by (semi-)civilised people just across the pond.

danyboy27

12th July 2010, 19:49

coming soon in bagdad fast food!

http://www.goodexperience.com/broken/images/strangeflavorchicken.jpg

Obs

12th July 2010, 20:41

Germans will also eat black pudding and head cheese. All due respect, but my ancestors and cousins are gross.
Don't you dare bad-mouth head cheese.

JohnnyC

12th July 2010, 20:46

It is unfortunate that something like this had to happen, but it was probably a necessity.

Man, how much do YOU know about the food situation in Iraq?

Also, I want to point out, as an American of German descent, that saying, "Germans will eat it." don't mean shit. Germans will also eat black pudding and head cheese. All due respect, but my ancestors and cousins are gross.

What's so wrong about eating black pudding and head cheese?

Also, not only in Germany, but in most of Europe, including the part where I live, both head cheese and black pudding are eaten.And I don't consider my self gross. :D

Robocommie

12th July 2010, 20:53

What's so wrong about eating black pudding and head cheese?

Also, not only in Germany, but in most of Europe, including the part where I live, both head cheese and black pudding are eaten.And I don't consider my self gross. :D

That's why I'm proud to live in the LAND OF THE FREE. ;):thumbup1:

We only eat offal parts ground up into hot dogs and such. Pork knuckle, pickled pig's feet, pork rinds, that good stuff.

No in all seriousness though, growing up I never ate much of that stuff, it's all regional anyhow, but my grandfather raised hogs so he was never too short of good pork cuts, cause he could keep a small portion of what he had slaughtered for market. Eat that stuff with some pineapple, roasted in the oven, mmmm. Damn, I'm looking forward to Thanksgiving all of a sudden.

Real talk, black pudding and head cheese seem gross, to me, but I recognize that it's a cultural thing. Similarly, I always find it weird when people are put off by the Bantu delicacy of cow's milk mixed with cow's blood, they seem to find it gross but if you've already accepted the idea of drinking another animal's breast milk, drinking it's blood doesn't seem that extreme. And weirdly enough, I'm one of the few people I know who finds sauerkraut delicious!

Blackscare

12th July 2010, 20:55

Don't you dare bad-mouth head cheese.

Obs, I used to think you were hot. Why'd you have to ruin that for me?

(you may know me as PKSoviet in tiny :P)

Guerrilla22

12th July 2010, 21:43

And what would be the problem for Muslims producing non-Halal food for export?

I don't think anyone is going to be interested in purchasing street dog meat from Iraq, nor should they.

Sam_b

12th July 2010, 21:49

Oh, Psy.

Psy

12th July 2010, 21:55

I don't think anyone is going to be interested in purchasing street dog meat from Iraq, nor should they.
What about the corrupt contractors in Iraq that have contracts to feed the occupation forces? Why would they not look at it another way to maximize their profits? It is not like contractors have to worry about losing their contracts with the Pentagon as contractors have already been exposed of simply taking the money and giving the US military nothing in return and the Pentagon responded by throwing more money at them.

M-26-7

12th July 2010, 21:56

I don't think anyone is going to be interested in purchasing street dog meat from Iraq, nor should they.

I am interested in purchasing some, and I don't appreciate your judgmental attitude (bolded).

Anyway, this thread started out strange from the first post (Was this thread made to bait animal rights leftists? Otherwise, who cares about this obscure story, and why did the OP feel it necessary to express approval of the dog killing unless he expected it to be a point of contention?), but took a turn for the truly bizarre with the Jonathan Swift-like modest proposal that Iraqis should eat their stray dog population.

Robocommie

12th July 2010, 22:03

This is like the socialist equivalent of, "Let them eat cake!"

Guerrilla22

12th July 2010, 22:10

What about the corrupt contractors in Iraq that have contracts to feed the occupation forces? Why would they not look at it another way to maximize their profits? It is not like contractors have to worry about losing their contracts with the Pentagon as contractors have already been exposed of simply taking the money and giving the US military nothing in return and the Pentagon responded by throwing more money at them.

At this point I think you should just give up. Insisting that people eat stray dogs so as not to waste anything is just silly.

I am interested in purchasing some, and I don't appreciate your judgmental attitude (bolded)

Wow you possibly are even crazier than Psy is, if you're being serious.

Psy

12th July 2010, 22:11

This is like the socialist equivalent of, "Let them eat cake!"
Why? If Marxist were in charge yes the logical thing would be to ship the wild dogs to ranches that raise dogs to fatten them up (and give them shots) to make them more useful as food and to make use of the industry already in place to turn them into food for societies that want them as food. In exchange shipping goats, chickens and sheep to Iraq to try to gets in agriculture industry going again. (That is if we had the capabilities to do so).

Yet we are not in charge, Iraqis are dealing with capitalism under brutal imperial occupation.

M-26-7

12th July 2010, 22:12

Wow you possibly are even crazier than Psy is, if you're being serious.

I was attempting a joke. :)

Psy

12th July 2010, 22:23

At this point I think you should just give up. Insisting that people eat stray dogs so as not to waste anything is just silly.

I'm sorry when did Iraq solve its crisis of scarcity? When did they solve its crisis of a lack of clean water that has crippled their entire agriculture industry? When did the occupying powers decided after years of not lifting a finger to rebuilt Iraq (to at least get it back to where it was before the war) actually get around to rebuilding Iraq?

It is not a issue of waste it is a issue of Iraq living standards continuing to rapidly to decline and the destruction of wild dogs is going to make Iraqis even more defendant on the occupation forces as the occupation forces have no intention of ever allowing Iraq to rebuild while they are occupying Iraq.

Guerrilla22

12th July 2010, 22:25

I'm sorry when did Iraq solve its crisis of scarcity? When did they solve its crisis of a lack of clean water that has crippled their entire agriculture industry? When did the occupying powers decided after years of not lifting a finger to rebuilt Iraq (to at least get it back to where it was before the war) actually get around to rebuilding Iraq?

It is not a issue of waste it is a issue of Iraq living standards continuing to rapidly to decline and the destruction of wild dogs is going to make Iraqis even more defendant on the occupation forces as the occupation forces have no intention of ever allowing Iraq to rebuild while they are occupying Iraq.

So they should be eating stray dogs, many of which are diseased?

Robocommie

12th July 2010, 22:26

Maybe it'd be better for Iraqis to protest and demand food they want rather than meekly eating vermin because the government won't feed them. Maybe they should fight against an imperial oppressor instead of learning to adapt to intolerable situations like you think they should.

I mean shit man, you've already nakedly advocated setting up a meat industry which employs fraud to sell it's products - as if this is in anyway an appropriate suggestion for a socialist to make.

Robocommie

12th July 2010, 22:28

Why? If Marxist were in charge yes the logical thing would be to ship the wild dogs to ranches that raise dogs to fatten them up (and give them shots) to make them more useful as food and to make use of the industry already in place to turn them into food for societies that want them as food. In exchange shipping goats, chickens and sheep to Iraq to try to gets in agriculture industry going again. (That is if we had the capabilities to do so).

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

You're precious.

Psy

12th July 2010, 22:57

So they should be eating stray dogs, many of which are diseased?
And you think when they shoot dogs simply to get rid of them as threat they will pick up the corpses? How many diseases do you think will be created with rotting dog corpses littering Iraq? Even if they simply dump it in the desert all that rotting meat will spread disease.

Maybe it'd be better for Iraqis to protest and demand food they want rather than meekly eating vermin because the government won't feed them. Maybe they should fight against an imperial oppressor instead of learning to adapt to intolerable situations like you think they should.

Hate to tell you it is only going to get worse for Iraqis, they are heading towards a living standard of a poor African nation. Iraqis fighting occupation would take far greater scarifies then eating stray wild dogs, just look at what Vietnam had to go through where they had to spend most of their time in cramped underground tunnels with very poor air quality, sleeping with insects biting them.

I mean shit man, you've already nakedly advocated setting up a meat industry which employs fraud to sell it's products - as if this is in anyway an appropriate suggestion for a socialist to make.
Capitalists already employs fraud to sell commodities, the only way we could realistically suggest Iraqis not employ fraud is suggest they attempt a workers revolution right now but for some reason I highly doubt Iraq will be the next Russia 1917 were capitalism once again is overthrow at its weakest link.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

You're precious.
What you object to people like in North Korea solving their food scarcity (and that normally eat dog) by through Iraqi's stray dogs to them even it went the dogs were cleaned up and fattened up?

Sam_b

12th July 2010, 23:09

I think the most objectable thing is you're posing a serious question about eating stray dogs, at a time where there are US and EU surplus food units with more than enough food to feed everyone.

Obs

12th July 2010, 23:10

Obs, I used to think you were hot. Why'd you have to ruin that for me?

(you may know me as PKSoviet in tiny :P)
I'm still hot, it's not that kind of head cheese... which I'm sure Psy would advocate feeding to the Iraqi poor, as well.

Robocommie

12th July 2010, 23:31

I think the most objectable thing is you're posing a serious question about eating stray dogs, at a time where there are US and EU surplus food units with more than enough food to feed everyone.

This is exactly it. A socialist should not tell people they have to be satisfied with the dregs.

Glenn Beck

12th July 2010, 23:54

The hungry have only themselves to blame. Let them eat dog.

Spawn of Stalin

12th July 2010, 23:58

Like I said, I recognize that it's got to be done. I just don't know about the personality of the guy who does that for a job.
A Communist making character judgements based on occupation. Now I've seen it all.

Maybe he just really hates dogs but is a good guy otherwise.:cool:
Maybe he's just a normal guy who lives in a war torn, poverty stricken country who will do just about anything to feed his wife and children.

You do know dogs are edible?
So are a lot of things. You ever visited scatpiss.net? People on that website will eat just about anything! Doesn't mean they should.

It is a lot better then eating rats.
Assuming we're talking about the feral variety, how so? Both carry all kinds of diseases, the only difference is while rats are fairly predictable in what diseases they carry, a dog will bite just about anything, so in turn could be infected with just about anything.

If dog meat is good enough for Japanese capitalists (Japan imports around 5 metric tonnes of dog meat from China every year) why would it not be good enough for Iraqis? Eastern Europeans consume dog fat in the form of smalec thus they consume a byproduct of the dog meat industry.

So basically you saying only American eating habits are right, any society that eats food that Americans think are taboo are crazy.
I think you are missing the point, in some countries dogs are bred and slaughtered for food just like chickens and cows, and that's fine, but we are talking about wild dogs. Trust me when I say you can't just go around picking shit up off the street and selling it off as a teatime snack.

And what would be the problem for Muslims producing non-Halal food for export?
PICK DOGS UP OFF DIRTY STREET. EXPORT TO JAPAN FOR PROFIT. Nice business plan.

And the dog meat could be sold as mystery meat where it is grounded up and mixed with other meats and simply labeled it meat. (capitalists already do this in other markets so why not in Iraq).
Because we are different to capitalists, we have an unwritten ethical code which we generally adhere by, you do not sell "mystery meat" to poor ass Muslims, it's just not on.

What a fucking laugh this topic is, honestly I was expecting the anarcho-vegans to crash it, but no, that's far too predictable for RevLeft, instead someone comes along and starts talking shit about selling dead dogs to the Japanese, and feeding Iraqis lucky dip "mystery meat". Jesus Christ.

Psy

13th July 2010, 00:00

This is exactly it. A socialist should not tell people they have to be satisfied with the dregs.
I not suggesting they should be satisfied but to endure. Yes capitalists could feed Iraqis but they won't, we should not fill them with false hope that if they protest the capitalists enough the capitalists will start caring about them.

Robocommie

13th July 2010, 00:10

I not suggesting they should be satisfied but to endure. Yes capitalists could feed Iraqis but they won't, we should not fill them with false hope that if they protest the capitalists enough the capitalists will start caring about them.

Well I'm pretty sure that if they get desperate enough, some families will indeed start catching and cooking dog. But that's not your place to demand they do so, to tell them they do so, to tell them they have to just deal with it and make do. Because chances are pretty good that you live a charmed existence, whatever your personality poverty level, in contrast to them. You should be expending your efforts to promoting getting the EU and US off their fat asses and import grain.

Robocommie

13th July 2010, 00:13

What a fucking laugh this topic is, honestly I was expecting the anarcho-vegans to crash it, but no, that's far too predictable for RevLeft, instead someone comes along and starts talking shit about selling dead dogs to the Japanese, and feeding Iraqis lucky dip "mystery meat". Jesus Christ.

It's fucking epic, isn't it? And this is from Psy the forklift dude. One more thread like this and I fucking swear we should make him the forum mascot.

Jazzratt

13th July 2010, 00:14

I not suggesting they should be satisfied but to endure. Yes capitalists could feed Iraqis but they won't, we should not fill them with false hope that if they protest the capitalists enough the capitalists will start caring about them. No, let us inestead of filling them with false hope fill them with potentially poisinous meat they have absolutely no interest in, in fact a moral compuction against, eating. Fucking hell.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 00:18

To clarify, this is not about whether or not it is acceptable to eat dog. It happens in many countries, it's not really worse than eating a pig or cow.

What is so repulsable is a letist advocating making desperate people eat stray dogs who could be infected with god-knows-what and would perhaps have religious reasons against eating, from his warm house with food and internet connection.

Psy

13th July 2010, 00:26

So are a lot of things. You ever visited scatpiss.net? People on that website will eat just about anything! Doesn't mean they should.

Yhea but there is good scientific reasons not to drink urine or eat scat

Assuming we're talking about the feral variety, how so? Both carry all kinds of diseases, the only difference is while rats are fairly predictable in what diseases they carry, a dog will bite just about anything, so in turn could be infected with just about anything.

I think you are missing the point, in some countries dogs are bred and slaughtered for food just like chickens and cows, and that's fine, but we are talking about wild dogs. Trust me when I say you can't just go around picking shit up off the street and selling it off as a teatime snack.

True but that if they are slaughter right off the street, not even corrupt capitalists in the meat industry do that they pump sick live stock full of antibiotics to try and get them somewhat healthy enough to go to market they also rely on radiation to kill most of what the antibiotics missed, as both are cheap in the current in the global market.

Because we are different to capitalists, we have an unwritten ethical code which we generally adhere by, you do not sell "mystery meat" to poor ass Muslims, it's just not on.

True but we are talking about a nation with a seriously crippled agricultural industry that has been crippled for years as the occupying powers has done nothing to restore food production in Iraq and unlike Afghanistan Iraq can't export illegal drugs to import food. We are talking a situation worse then was in Russia following the civil-war as at least then Russians migrated to farm land yet in Iraq there is no farm land for Iraqis to migrate to even just to sustain themselves as they are dealing with contaminated soil/water and a broken irrigation system.

Psy

13th July 2010, 00:35

No, let us inestead of filling them with false hope fill them with potentially poisinous meat they have absolutely no interest in, in fact a moral compuction against, eating. Fucking hell.
Well lets look at the other option.

They shoot the dogs, who picks up their dead bodies? The occupation forces don't pick up human corpses in a timely manner so why would they do any better with animal corpses? Can you image the diseases 1.25 million dead dogs roasting in the Iraqi sun would bring? Can you image how more contaminated the water and soil would become if they tried to bury that many strays?

And this is better then at least trying to clean up the strays for processing how?

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 00:53

So now you've gone on to say that the Iraqi people need to eat the dogs because there's no other way of disposing of them?

I'm sorry Psy, but this is complete lunacy.

Psy

13th July 2010, 01:03

So now you've gone on to say that the Iraqi people need to eat the dogs because there's no other way of disposing of them?

I'm sorry Psy, but this is complete lunacy.

No, I'm raising the issue of how Iraq would dispose of 1.25 million dogs. Because the arguments against processing them as live stock is the effort required to prepare them for slaughter (so they are not so disease ridden and have more meat/fat on them), yet for that to be valid it would mean disposing of 1.25 million dogs corpses would require less effort without doing more harm.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 01:09

So now you've gone on to say that the Iraqi people need to eat the dogs because there's no other way of disposing of them?

No

(so they are not so disease ridden and have more meat/fat on them)

:rolleyes:

Psy

13th July 2010, 01:47

:rolleyes:
What is your point? Are you suggesting dealing with the contamination the strays would cause as corpses would be easier to deal with then making them somewhat healthy as live stock?

See no mater how you look at it resources will have to be spent on dealing with the issue in a proper manner.

Robocommie

13th July 2010, 02:10

It's not fucking happening Psy. Just deal with it.

Lyev

13th July 2010, 02:15

What is your point? Are you suggesting dealing with the contamination the strays would cause as corpses would be easier to deal with then making them somewhat healthy as live stock?

See no mater how you look at it resources will have to be spent on dealing with the issue in a proper manner.Resources like salt & pepper and some tasty sauces!? amirite!

Psy

13th July 2010, 02:19

It's not fucking happening Psy. Just deal with it.
You didn't address my point, what would be easier to deal with 1.25 million dog corpses in a country already suffering from soil and water contamination or 1.25 million diseased dogs as livestock.

Robocommie

13th July 2010, 02:21

You didn't address my point, what would be easier to deal with 1.25 million dog corpses in a country already suffering from soil and water contamination or 1.25 million diseased dogs as livestock.

I didn't address your point and I'm not going to. It's dumb.

Psy

13th July 2010, 02:29

Resources like salt & pepper and some tasty sauces!? amirite!

No, in the event of destroying the strays they would be shipped to a incinerator to ensure their corpses would not spread disease this is what most laws mandates in modern industrial nations for any diseased live stock.

To turn them into food they would be feed and pumped full of antibiotics to make them relatively heavily and have enough meat and fat on them.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 02:34

What is your point?

That you are a complete and utter idiot, and this is another sad chapter in your detachment from reality.

Are you suggesting dealing with the contamination the strays would cause as corpses would be easier to deal with then making them somewhat healthy as live stock?

Yes.

One pretty fucking simple option would be to burn them.

Psy

13th July 2010, 02:35

I didn't address your point and I'm not going to. It's dumb.

Why is it dumb?

Do you think the US will ship the 1.25 million dog corpses to a nation with the capacity to safely dispose of them? Do you think the US will build proper incinerator in Iraq to destroy the dogs? Even if they did wouldn't that just means wasted labor and more air pollution? I mean Iraq would get a fancy incinerator but still be hunger as the labor cost of properly disposing of the dogs would have not gone towards rebuilding Iraq or even humanitarian aid.

Psy

13th July 2010, 02:42

That you are a complete and utter idiot, and this is another sad chapter in your detachment from reality.

Yes.

One pretty fucking simple option would be to burn them.
Brilliant that would spread what ever disease the dogs have through the air which is why it is illegal to burn road kill in developed countries. Your average flame is no where near hot enough to destroy all bacteria plus you'd then have the danger of open fires getting out of control.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 02:44

I would suggest its a better idea than trying to give the entire Iraqi population the plague.

Robocommie

13th July 2010, 02:47

Why is it dumb?

Do you think the US will ship the 1.25 million dog corpses to a nation with the capacity to safely dispose of them? Do you think the US will build proper incinerator in Iraq to destroy the dogs? Even if they did wouldn't that just means wasted labor and more air pollution? I mean Iraq would get a fancy incinerator but still be hunger as the labor cost of properly disposing of the dogs would have not gone towards rebuilding Iraq or even humanitarian aid.

God-damn dude.

I'm pretty sure Baghdad has an incinerator or two, and even if not, you know my grandfather used to dispose of dead hogs on a complicated piece of technology known as a "burn pile" which mainly consisted of a pile of wood, to which he applied both dead hog and fire. Complicated, I know, but it works.

The fact that you're still laboring at this point is truly astonishing. I'm still here because this shit is funny to me. You on the other hand, as far as I can tell, are seriously dedicated to promoting this idea that the people of Baghdad should eat these stray dogs, despite all logic to the contrary. No matter how many good solid reasons we give to you as to why it's totally impractical, either morally, culturally or logistically, you just come up with half-ass excuse after another to push this conclusion - and it's really fucking weird that you are so dedicated to this.

Robocommie

13th July 2010, 02:48

I would suggest its a better idea than trying to give the entire Iraqi population the plague.

Sam what if the dogs rise up as zombies? Have you considered that? Then the dogs will eat the Iraqis.

Psy

13th July 2010, 02:48

I would suggest its a better idea than trying to give the entire Iraqi population the plague.
Well there is this medical break through called antibiotics you might have heard of it. For most of what the strays probably have it is far easier to kill it with the immune systems of the dogs then kill them with heat, chemicals or radiation.

Psy

13th July 2010, 02:55

God-damn dude.

I'm pretty sure Baghdad has an incinerator or two,

That still have rolling backouts, what makes you think they can run incinerators just to dispose of dogs?

and even if not, you know my grandfather used to dispose of dead hogs on a complicated piece of technology known as a "burn pile" which mainly consisted of a pile of wood, to which he applied both dead hog and fire. Complicated, I know, but it works.

Those dogs probably were much healthier at time of death.

The fact that you're still laboring at this point is truly astonishing. I'm still here because this shit is funny to me. You on the other hand, as far as I can tell, are seriously dedicated to promoting this idea that the people of Baghdad should eat these stray dogs, despite all logic to the contrary. No matter how many good solid reasons we give to you as to why it's totally impractical, either morally, culturally or logistically, you just come up with half-ass excuse after another to push this conclusion - and it's really fucking weird that you are so dedicated to this.
From my point of view your doing the same. Remember I admitted exporting them to nations that like eating dogs would be ideal, and before I even stated exporting the dogs to countries that can make properly deal with them would be ideal.

Yet you seem to think that simply burning them in open fires is a much better idea then letting say China convert them to healthy livestock for whatever purpose.

To me it is weird that you are totally dedicated in these dogs not being utilized in anyway, I bet you'd probably event object to them being turned into lab animals after they went through a period of recovery.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 03:00

Well there is this medical break through called antibiotics you might have heard of it. For most of what the strays probably have it is far easier to kill it with the immune systems of the dogs then kill them with heat, chemicals or radiation.

...and the lunacy gets deeper.

So, there is no money for incinerators, no money for the Iraqi people, yet there somehow an unlimited supply of money for antibiotics and medication for the tens (even hundreds) of thousands of dogs, while there isn't enough medicine or the Iraqi people?

Wow. I don't know why I keep dignifying this nonsense with replies.

bcbm

13th July 2010, 03:07

psy, seriously, what are you fucking on?

Psy

13th July 2010, 03:25

...and the lunacy gets deeper.

So, there is no money for incinerators, no money for the Iraqi people, yet there somehow an unlimited supply of money for antibiotics and medication for the tens (even hundreds) of thousands of dogs, while there isn't enough medicine or the Iraqi people?

Wow. I don't know why I keep dignifying this nonsense with replies.

We can reverse that, there is no money for antibiotics but there is money for incinerators.

Since you seem slow on the pickup let me totally spell it out for you.

Iraq currently does not have the means to deal with the dogs period, at best they will be ineffective at worse they will spread disease through not properly disposing of the corpses.

Meaning the only way Iraq could properly deal with the strays under capitalism would be to commodity them. Yet surprising no one clued in I was talking about the commodification of the strays as a capitalist solution to the problem.

If we actually were talking about probably dealing with the issue outside capitalism then treating the dogs and giving them time to recover would be the best option at that point they would simply be a resource to be used.

What we got was people getting upset of the idea of stray dogs being transformed into a resource as if stray dogs would always be a stray dog, yes I didn't make that clear but come on do you guys honestly think Iraqis that raise chickens, goats and sheep are too stupid to let the strays recover before slaughtering them? Or that nations that regularly raise dogs as live stock would not quarantine them till they recovered?

I hate to say it but you guys are totally close minded, you refuse to even entertain any idea of dealing with the strays as anything but waste.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 03:44

We can reverse that, there is no money for antibiotics but there is money for incinerators

I've never claimed that there has been.

Since you seem slow on the pickup let me totally spell it out for you.

Oh the irony.

Psy

13th July 2010, 04:20

I've never claimed that there has been.

So then how is destroying stray dogs a better solution?

Cause you acting like the option of letting the dogs get better is crazy because destroying them is such a better option but why? If they don't have the resources to treat the strays they don't have the resources to dispose of 1.25 million strays in a safe manner.

I admit treating 1.25 million strays is a major undertaking but so is disposing of so many strays in a country that is already suffering from soil and water contamination.

Oh the irony.
By irony do you mean the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning or do you mean pretended ignorance in discussion (socratic irony)? as I don't see the former.

Saorsa

13th July 2010, 04:27

I love you Psy :lol:

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 04:31

because destroying them is such a better option but why?

So you don't keep encouraging Iraqis to eat them.

Psy

13th July 2010, 04:42

So you don't keep encouraging Iraqis to eat them.
So if Iraqis didn't have to eat them it would be the better option? Like if they became lab animals, rehabilitated into work dogs or exported to those do like eating dog (again allowed to recover).

Revy

13th July 2010, 05:01

So if Iraqis didn't have to eat them it would be the better option? Like if they became lab animals, rehabilitated into work dogs or exported to those do like eating dog (again allowed to recover).

Why is that better than killing them to protect the human population from hungry stray dogs attacking human beings? What is so special about dogs, considering that pigs are smarter? Billions of farm animals killed. Is that more moral because we eat them? That is insane logic.

Lab animals? Lab technicians need docile animals. Work dogs? They need to be obedient. And again, dog meat is taboo and considered repugnant (have you looked at pictures of dog meat lately?) in most places and those places where it is not that uncommon it is often an illegal product despite the consumption. Plus, stray dogs might carry diseases.

Robocommie

13th July 2010, 05:10

Lab animals? Lab technicians need docile animals. Work dogs? They need to be obedient. And again, dog meat is taboo and considered repugnant (have you looked at pictures of dog meat lately?) in most places and those places where it is not that uncommon it is often an illegal product despite the consumption. Plus, stray dogs might carry diseases.

That's a good point actually, even in South Korea, dogmeat is illegal. In a lot of places it's being banned.

Psy

13th July 2010, 05:30

Why is that better than killing them to protect the human population from hungry stray dogs attacking human beings?

What do you do with 1.25 million cascaras of animals that are in worse shape then your average wild animal?

What is so special about dogs, considering that pigs are smarter? Billions of farm animals killed. Is that more moral because we eat them? That is insane logic.

It is amoral because we turn them into a resource that the animals death would not be in vain. In Iraq cause it is killing animals because we are too lazy to turn them into a resource.

Lab animals? Lab technicians need docile animals. Work dogs? They need to be obedient.

Can be arranged it is not like strays will remain strays indefinitely even when their enviorment changes.

And again, dog meat is taboo and considered repugnant (have you looked at pictures of dog meat lately?) in most places and those places where it is not that uncommon it is often an illegal product despite the consumption.

This has accrued mostly due to Americanization of cultures for example central and eastern use to make lard mostly from dogs not pigs and even when they moved to pig lard they still produced dog lard as a delicacy and as remedy they only started banning it after the iron curtain fell before then the production of dog lard was nationally planned and there was no real objection to it.

Plus, stray dogs might carry diseases.
It is easier to deal with diseases while the animal is live then a corpse as at least when it is alive you have its immune system working with you.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 05:36

What do you do with 1.25 million cascaras of animals that are in worse shape then your average wild animal?

I agree but why would dogs not be people food?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip-flopping

Adi Shankara

13th July 2010, 05:41

I don't see what's wrong in making dogs food. they're a source of protein, they can be farmed like any other animal--I'm not suggesting the eating of strays, as you don't know what viruses they carry, but this imaginary bond we share with dogs comes from 80 years of Disney propaganda.

Pigs are more intelligent than dogs, and we have no problem eating them, afterall.

Revy

13th July 2010, 05:42

What do you do with 1.25 million cascaras of animals that are in worse shape then your average wild animal?

I thought it was 58,000? they move the bodies away from the city and burn them. that way there is no "contamination".

It is amoral because we turn them into a resource that the animals death would not be in vain. In Iraq cause it is killing animals because we are too lazy to turn them into a resource.
Right. The dog is going to feel comfort knowing that it was killed and eaten instead of just plain killed. Newsflash, the dog doesn't care about its death being in vain, it would gladly eat a baby if it was hungry.

Can be arranged it is not like strays will remain strays indefinitely even when their enviorment changes.
Who has the resources to attempt to rehabilitate so many feral stray dogs into domesticated ones while Iraq's humans still suffer from violence and war?

This has accrued mostly due to Americanization of cultures for example central and eastern use to make lard mostly from dogs not pigs and even when they moved to pig lard they still produced dog lard as a delicacy and as remedy they only started banning it after the iron curtain fell before then the production of dog lard was nationally planned and there was no real objection to it.
The taboo against eating dog is not just an American thing. WTF does "Americanization" have to do with this, I am pretty sure that just because people don't like eating dog doesn't make them "Americanized". Again who has the resources to export dog meat from a wartorn country because the dogs shouldn't "die in vain"?

It is easier to deal with diseases while the animal is live then a corpse as at least when it is alive you have its immune system working with you.
If you leave a dog's corpse in the streets, yes, the body will pose a public health issue but if they are going to shoot so many dogs then I am sure they are going to clean the bodies up and move them away.

Question: If I run over a squirrel should I eat it so it doesn't die in vain? I guess so.....

Psy

13th July 2010, 05:43

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip-flopping
That is not flip-flopping, there were and still are objection to even raising dogs to turn into food. Also it is possible to improve the health of a stray when you turn them into live stock, you can't do the same with a diseased animal as their immune system no longer is working.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 05:54

So none of these dogs are 'diseased' at all then?

Guerrilla22

13th July 2010, 05:59

I think the best thing to do would be to incinerate the carcasses of the dogs they shoot. Is this not reasonable?

Adi Shankara

13th July 2010, 05:59

I think the best thing to do would be to incinerate the carcasses of the dogs they shoot. Is this not reasonable?

incinerating is the best way to eliminate disease, so yes this would be a good idea.

another thing that could work, which I'm surprised hasn't been done yet, is the consuming of insects...that would at least take care of any food shortages.

Psy

13th July 2010, 06:01

I thought it was 58,000? they move the bodies away from the city and burn them. that way there is no "contamination".

58,000 is just how many they killed. 1.25 million is the estimated stray population. Bio hazards can survive the heat of a open flame, many bio hazards are naturally spread by forest fires that are much hotter then your average open fire.

Right. The dog is going to feel comfort knowing that it was killed and eaten instead of just plain killed. Newsflash, the dog doesn't care about its death being in vain, it would gladly eat a baby if it was hungry.

By that logic we can do what ever want to animal even torture them for our own amusement.

Who has the resources to attempt to rehabilitate so many feral stray dogs into domesticated ones while Iraq's humans still suffer from violence and war?

Who has the resources to properly dispose of them?

The taboo against eating dog is not just an American thing. WTF does "Americanization" have to do with this, I am pretty sure that just because people don't like eating dog doesn't make them "Americanized".

American cuisine has imposed itself around the world it even defeated the French that though soda was as gross as drinking dish water and demanded it be banned from France. Yet I don't see people felling bad for the French people being forced to drink soda by the USA.

Again who has the resources to export dog meat from a wartorn country because the dogs shouldn't "die in vain"?

Again who has the resources to properly dispose of the corpses?

If you leave a dog's corpse in the streets, yes, the body will pose a public health issue but if they are going to shoot so many dogs then I am sure they are going to clean the bodies up and move them away.

And then what, they a bio hazard.

Question: If I run over a squirrel should I eat it so it doesn't die in vain? I guess so.....
That is Darwinism, if the squirrel was faster it wouldn't have died yet for stray dogs Darwinism would state they would have evolve enough to defeat humanity in order to survive rather then simply evolving enough to avoid getting hit by our cars.

Psy

13th July 2010, 06:06

So none of these dogs are 'diseased' at all then?
They are but their immune system can fix that if their enviorment is changed. This kinda goes without saying, I mean do you think diseased humans are beyond hope?

Psy

13th July 2010, 06:09

incinerating is the best way to eliminate disease, so yes this would be a good idea.

another thing that could work, which I'm surprised hasn't been done yet, is the consuming of insects...that would at least take care of any food shortages.
Only problem is a human would require to consume a lot of insects, it mostly give us less energy then we'd spend laboring to get them thus why they are mostly a delicacy.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 06:13

I mean do you think diseased humans are beyond hope?

I don't eat humans.

Psy

13th July 2010, 06:15

I don't eat humans.
I meant in terms of humans being able to overcome diseases, thus we don't have to just shoot those of use that get sick.

khad

13th July 2010, 06:15

That psy, our resident freak, is a "committed user" speaks volumes about this board's decline in standards.

This has to be the greatest demonstration of serious leftwing politics since the revleft furries were talking about weaponizing humans into cyberdragons.

Adi Shankara

13th July 2010, 06:29

Only problem is a human would require to consume a lot of insects, it mostly give us less energy then we'd spend laboring to get them thus why they are mostly a delicacy.

insects take very little energy to produce. for the amount of water it takes to create 150 grams of beef, you can create that number times 2000 for grasshoppers.

off topic, but interesting.

Guerrilla22

13th July 2010, 06:31

Jazzratt

13th July 2010, 08:21

I meant in terms of humans being able to overcome diseases, thus we don't have to just shoot those of use that get sick. We do have to shoot the dogs though, because they are mental and will fuck you up. It's also inadvisable to eat them even if they aren't actually symptomatic of any diseases because it is almost certain they are acting as carriers and oh god why am I going over this immensly basic shit with you?

You've outdone yourself, you really have.

Obs

13th July 2010, 13:41

Spawn of Stalin

13th July 2010, 14:15

Yhea but there is good scientific reasons not to drink urine or eat scat

True but that if they are slaughter right off the street, not even corrupt capitalists in the meat industry do that they pump sick live stock full of antibiotics to try and get them somewhat healthy enough to go to market they also rely on radiation to kill most of what the antibiotics missed, as both are cheap in the current in the global market.

True but we are talking about a nation with a seriously crippled agricultural industry that has been crippled for years as the occupying powers has done nothing to restore food production in Iraq and unlike Afghanistan Iraq can't export illegal drugs to import food. We are talking a situation worse then was in Russia following the civil-war as at least then Russians migrated to farm land yet in Iraq there is no farm land for Iraqis to migrate to even just to sustain themselves as they are dealing with contaminated soil/water and a broken irrigation system.

Has anyone ever told you that you are crazy?

Psy

13th July 2010, 14:47

insects take very little energy to produce. for the amount of water it takes to create 150 grams of beef, you can create that number times 2000 for grasshoppers.

off topic, but interesting.
You need more then water to create insects as insects themselves do eat, more importantly you'd have to worry about containment as large insects in large numbers can eat alot but that is off topic

We do have to shoot the dogs though, because they are mental and will fuck you up.

You do know in developed countries they are netted and detained till it is decided what to do with them, they are only shot when they are a intimidate threat.

It's also inadvisable to eat them even if they aren't actually symptomatic of any diseases because it is almost certain they are acting as carriers and oh god why am I going over this immensly basic shit with you?

As I already went over their own immune system can combat what they are carrying while as a corpse they become a bio hazard and extreme heat, radiation or chemicals would have to be used to destroy the diseases the dog was carrying.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 14:50

How many thousands of sheep were openly burned in fields during Foot & Mouth again?

Andropov

13th July 2010, 14:55

Decline? He's been here since 2005. Did he get crazier over time?
There were alot of better posters here that diluted the forum from the likes of Psy.

Psy

13th July 2010, 14:57

Has anyone ever told you that you are crazy?

Decline? He's been here since 2005. Did he get crazier over time?

It speaks volumes the close mindedness here that I'm crazy for suggesting turning the strays into a useful resource instead of turning them into a biological hazard in a nation unable to deal with them on such a scale.

Robocommie

13th July 2010, 15:03

It speaks volumes the close mindedness here that I'm crazy for suggesting turning the strays into a useful resource instead of turning them into a biological hazard in a nation unable to deal with them on such a scale.

We're not advocating turning them in to a biological hazard. They ARE a biological hazard. They've already killed children. Articles on this story point out that the population of Baghdad heartily support this initiative.

The only thing you're accomplishing here is to further cement your reputation as a loon. Why is this so important to you?

Psy

13th July 2010, 15:08

How many thousands of sheep were openly burned in fields during Foot & Mouth again?
And most medical scientists said the British government was completely retarded for doing so and compared it to medieval medical science. They were proven right as Foot & Mouth much spread faster due to them burning the diseased animals in open fires as it became air borne and infected animals over a much wider distance.

The disease only started to get under control when governments stopped the burnings as it was making the epidemic worse and started giving livestock mandatory vaccinations.

Psy

13th July 2010, 15:11

We're not advocating turning them in to a biological hazard. They ARE a biological hazard. They've already killed children. Articles on this story point out that the population of Baghdad heartily support this initiative.

They would be a bigger biological hazard burning them in open fires or burying them also how many of the Baghdad population are medical doctors?

The only thing you're accomplishing here is to further cement your reputation as a loon. Why is this so important to you?
Because the scientific community does not support this for good reason it won't work, it didn't work in the past and in the past made things much worse.

If I am a loon for standing up for the scientific community then so be.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 15:12

^Ooh, is that the 'revolutionary' using prejudiced language such as 'retarded'?

I'm crazy for suggesting turning the strays into a useful resource instead of turning them into a biological hazard in a nation unable to deal with them on such a scale.

and that the situation in Greece would be averted by a revolutionary army burning banls yet rescuing the workers.

and that we can raise class consciousness by leftist messages in video games.

and that we should think long and hard about the roles of forklift trucks in revolutionary situations.

Robocommie

13th July 2010, 15:14

If he keeps this up for the rest of the week, does he win a prize or something?

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 15:16

He wins one of those 'hilarious threads' in the chit-chat awards. This is how he thins the field.

bcbm

13th July 2010, 15:16

this imaginary bond we share with dogs comes from 80 years of Disney propaganda.

or maybe the 15,000 years we have had a bond with dogs?

Psy

13th July 2010, 15:20

^Ooh, is that the 'revolutionary' using prejudiced language such as 'retarded'?

No that is me quoting the scientific communities response to the burning of animals with Foot & Mouth

and that the situation in Greece would be averted by a revolutionary army burning banls yet rescuing the workers.

No, defending the workers in the bank from it getting burned to being with or rescuing them once it did get set on fire by instigators or the misguided. This is because burning banks help the situation in Greece.

and that we can raise class consciousness by leftist messages in video games.

Then the US Army is crazy for using its video game America's Army as propaganda.

and that we should think long and hard about the roles of forklift trucks in revolutionary situations.
Cause mechanization of labor is a stupid idea during a revolution.

Robocommie

13th July 2010, 15:22

No that is me quoting the scientific communities response to the burning of animals with Foot & Mouth

Hah, the scientific community used the term "retarded"?

Psy

13th July 2010, 15:27

Hah, the scientific community used the term "retarded"?
Yes for doing the worse thing they could have possibly done, burning live stock with an air bone disease. All the burnings did was help the disease spread farther and faster as the scientific community told them that is exactly what would would happen as open fires are far too weak to kill diseases which is why you can still get food positioning from cooked food and even burnt food.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 15:30

OK Psy, quote me where a scientist described it as 'retarded' and I won't call on an admin to warn you for prejudiced language.

Robocommie

13th July 2010, 15:31

Yes for doing the worse thing they could have possibly done, burning live stock with an air bone disease. All the burnings did was help the disease spread farther and faster as the scientific community told them that is exactly what would would happen as open fires are far too weak to kill diseases which is why you can still get food positioning from cooked food and even burnt food.

Dude it's like the end of Return of the Living Dead.

Chambered Word

13th July 2010, 15:40

Sam what if the dogs rise up as zombies? Have you considered that? Then the dogs will eat the Iraqis.

Dude it's like the end of Return of the Living Dead.

Can you stop making stupid comments in threads like that? Thanks.

Psy

13th July 2010, 15:59

OK Psy, quote me where a scientist described it as 'retarded' and I won't call on an admin to warn you for prejudiced language.
Wait how is that prejudiced language?

Retardation is a generalized disorder, characterized by significantly impaired cognitive functioning. In this case it is used to imply the government had significantly impaired cognitive functioning.

Are you suggesting my statement was prejudice against those with such mental disorders by comparing them to governments? If so I apologize I never meant to compare them to the lack of cognitive functioning of government officials.

Or are you suggesting my statement was prejudice against government officials? If so how is that different from me being called crazy that implies I have abnormal mental or behavioral patterns?

Robocommie

13th July 2010, 16:04

Can you stop making stupid comments in threads like that? Thanks.

What, you want me to treat this thread with the respect it deserves?

I'm pretty sure I am.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 16:05

Guerrilla22

13th July 2010, 16:15

How many thousands of sheep were openly burned in fields during Foot & Mouth again?

They could have been fed to homeless people remember.

Psy

13th July 2010, 16:17

How can a user thats been on here since 2005 missed every single thread about prejudiced language concerning this term? I would have thought that the word 'retard', which is used in the pseudo-context here to mean something ridiculous or stupid and therefore mocks those who have learning difficulties, is pretty easy to spell out.
In this context it saying the government has learning difficulties (specifically lack of problem solving skills) thus would only be prejudice if one considers comparing those with learning difficulties to the mental ability of governments mocking those with learning difficulties (basically saying those with learning difficulties have far less difficulties with learning then governments).

khad

13th July 2010, 16:22

bcbm

13th July 2010, 16:23

here psy

http://www.lesliehawes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/shovel-8308.jpg

should speed this up a bit

Psy

13th July 2010, 16:31

You know what, Psy? I was going to let you off with a verbal warning because people often say "retarded" as a flippant, off-hand comment, but here you go linking the medical definition with what you just said.

Infraction for prejudiced language. Persist, and more will come.
Did you read my posts? Who is it prejudicial too? The bourgeois government or those with the condition?

I already apologized saying I did not to mean to insult those with such conditions by saying they are as mentally impaired as those in the bourgeois governments.

In context I was saying the government has problems with problem solving to which they would (technically) be lumped with such people but only this is not a insult to those with such conditions but a insult to the governments.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 16:50

by saying they are as mentally impaired as those in the bourgeois governments

I'd be tempted to infract you again just for that.

the government has problems with problem solving to which they would (technically) be lumped with such people but only this is not a insult to those with such conditions but a insult to the governments.

You just don't get it, do you?

Ismail

13th July 2010, 16:53

Did you read my posts? Who is it prejudicial too? The bourgeois government or those with the condition?

I already apologized saying I did not to mean to insult those with such conditions by saying they are as mentally impaired as those in the bourgeois governments.

In context I was saying the government has problems with problem solving to which they would (technically) be lumped with such people but only this is not a insult to those with such conditions but a insult to the governments.Infraction for continuing to justify prejudiced language.

Jazzratt

13th July 2010, 16:58

Honestly I would ask you to quit while you're ahead, Psy, but that ship sailed. It sailed and sank and is never coming back. All I can really say is quit whilst you're not so astronomically far behind that you meet yourself coming the other way.

Robocommie

13th July 2010, 17:17

Man, this is seriously starting to feel like watching a dude throw himself into a wall. It's kindof painful.

Guerrilla22

13th July 2010, 17:19

Psy stop. Please just stop.

Psy

13th July 2010, 17:22

Psy stop. Please just stop.
I have I am taking this up with admins as procedure was not followed, I ask this thread be locked.

khad

13th July 2010, 17:41

I have I am taking this up with admins as procedure was not followed, I ask this thread be locked.
Why? Just because you had a hissy fit? This isn't your thread, and this isn't your playground.

How about letting other people discuss this topic in a serious manner that doesn't involve prejudiced language and demands that Iraqis force diseased haram meat down their throats?

danyboy27

13th July 2010, 17:55

that good, at least they didnt pay some foreign firm to handle the problem.

Psy

13th July 2010, 17:55

Why? Just because you had a hissy fit? This isn't your thread, and this isn't your playground.

Because I was personally attacked in this thread and a mod instead of maintaining order also partook in personal attacks against me that was all before the incident in question.

How about letting other people discuss this topic in a serious manner that doesn't involve prejudiced language and demands that Iraqis force diseased haram meat down their throats?
That would mean all mods would have to do to get their way in a thread is hound people till they mess up then make a mountain out of a mole hill.

danyboy27

13th July 2010, 17:56

Because I was personally attacked in this thread and a mod instead of maintaining order also partook in personal attacks against me that was all before the incident in question.

That would mean all mods would have to do to get their way in a thread is hound people till they mess up then make a mountain out of a mole hill.

you could request part of the conversation to be trashed instead.

piet11111

13th July 2010, 18:09

I would totally try out dog kebab for 10 euro's.

Psy

13th July 2010, 18:30

you could request part of the conversation to be trashed instead.
That is not the problem, the problem is a bias use of mod powers since the mod in question flamed me that is just as much against the rules.

bcbm

13th July 2010, 18:55

the problem is a bias use of mod powers

here?!?! no way

Psy

13th July 2010, 19:33

here?!?! no way
Way! also if you think about it, the film "the Corporation" would be just as guilty (if not more so) since they compare the behaviors of capitalists to the symptoms of psychopathy that in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems falls under the r word, meaning "the corporation" call capitalists the r word.

khad

13th July 2010, 19:44

Way! also if you think about it, the film "the Corporation" would be just as guilty (if not more so) since they compare the behaviors of capitalists to the symptoms of psychopathy that in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems falls under the r word, meaning "the corporation" call capitalists the r word.
You saw it in a movie, so now ridiculing things based on the medical definition of "retardation" is ok on revleft?

What did I tell you?

This is another infraction.

Robocommie

13th July 2010, 19:45

You know, before this thread, I had never actually seen a person spontaneously combust before.

bcbm

13th July 2010, 19:46

Way! also if you think about it, the film "the Corporation" would be just as guilty (if not more so) since they compare the behaviors of capitalists to the symptoms of psychopathy that in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems falls under the r word, meaning "the corporation" call capitalists the r word.

actually it is classified as a "disorder of adult behavior and personality," and given that caretakers, parents and so on of individuals dealing with developmental delay are actively (http://www.specialolympics.org/r-word.aspx) campaigning (http://r-word.org/) to end the use of the r word, maybe you should shut the fuck up?

Psy

13th July 2010, 19:47

You saw it in a movie, so now ridiculing things based on the medical definition of "retardation" is ok on revleft?

What did I tell you?

This is another infraction.
All hail Khard!

That's for proving my point that your mad with power.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 19:54

That's proving my point that you're mad.

Mindtoaster

13th July 2010, 20:02

This thread is really painful to view

Blackscare

13th July 2010, 20:10

If I didn't love internet shadenfruede so much I'd be inclined to agree with mindtoaster.

Adi Shankara

13th July 2010, 20:18

Psy

13th July 2010, 20:31

Psy, allow me to ask respectfully...

if someone shot a dog with rabies or a dog with patches of fur falling out, bloody eyes, etc. off the street of whatever city you said you live in, cooked it up, and served it on a plate for you...would you eat it?

No.

if your answer is ANYTHING but "yes, I'd eat every last bite", then why in hell should the Iraqi's be subjected to eating it?
Because we are not talking about Iraqis cooking up dog right of the street (at least not unless they were really really desperate) we are talking about dealing with the dog while it is a live as at least then its immune system can help.

I already stated if they don't want to eat it there is other uses the dogs could be used for once they are made healthy.

The opposition to me simply mostly seem to have the dogs thrown in animal pyres that like HMD could help the spread of disease due to the cost of incinerating their bodies being prohibitive.

Adi Shankara

13th July 2010, 20:45

No.

a question with what should be an obvious answer, but: why not?

Because we are not talking about Iraqis cooking up dog right of the street (at least not unless they were really really desperate) we are talking about dealing with the dog while it is a live as at least then its immune system can help.

what's the difference? the Dog's immune system obviously failed, or else it wouldn't be so diseased and sick. anyways, who has the time to wait for dogs to gain health for eating? it's unproductive.

The opposition to me simply mostly seem to have the dogs thrown in animal pyres that like HMD could help the spread of disease due to the cost of incinerating their bodies being prohibitive.

There is a very good reason to cremate the bodies of animals that could potentially carry disease. it's not "imperialist thinking", it's common sense; if one dog was to have a contagion, then it could quickly spread to all other dogs that actually are healthy, or even worse, to humans.

Blackscare

13th July 2010, 20:46

Because we are not talking about Iraqis cooking up dog right of the street (at least not unless they were really really desperate) we are talking about dealing with the dog while it is a live as at least then its immune system can help.

I already stated if they don't want to eat it there is other uses the dogs could be used for once they are made healthy.
Wait, so the same local government thats too impoverished to feed its citizens properly has money to house and provide veterinary treatment for 1.5 million strays? After, of course, the teams upon teams of dog catchers collect them all.

[edit]

Also, the government would need to buy a vast amount of dog food to feed these strays and nurse them back to health. Do you see any fucking irony in that at all? They don't have the money to feed people but you want them to care for and feed fucking STRAYS so that THEY can later be eaten by MOTHERFUCKINGPEOPLE!

Adi Shankara

13th July 2010, 20:48

Wait, so the same local government thats too impoverished to feed its citizens properly has money to house and provide veterinary treatment for 1.5 million strays? After, of course, the teams upon teams of dog catchers collect them all.

apparently, just so they can be eaten. I can think of many many uses that such money can be put towards, such as, idk...providing every Iraqi family with an acre of land so they could raise chickens or something?

Jazzratt

13th July 2010, 20:59

apparently, just so they can be eaten. I can think of many many uses that such money can be put towards, such as, idk...providing every Iraqi family with an acre of land so they could raise chickens or something? Maybe they could be given some land to raise dogs for the massive export market in dead dogs.

Sam_b

13th July 2010, 21:00

I already stated if they don't want to eat it there is other uses the dogs could be used for once they are made healthy

http://www.limosinehirelondon.co.uk/graphics/dogs1.jpg

http://ncss.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/2008/04/04/dog_sled_2.jpg

http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/rst0046l.jpg

Adi Shankara

13th July 2010, 21:02

^
fucking lol'd

bcbm

13th July 2010, 21:02

i smell a sequel to the movie "cool runnings" about the first iraqi dogsled team.

Adi Shankara

13th July 2010, 21:03

i smell a sequel to the movie "cool runnings" about the first iraqi dogsled team.

"hot draggings"? :laugh:

Psy

13th July 2010, 21:37

Wait, so the same local government thats too impoverished to feed its citizens properly has money to house and provide veterinary treatment for 1.5 million strays? After, of course, the teams upon teams of dog catchers collect them all.

That would also mean they are too impoverished to incinerate the dogs so neither option allows them to solve the problem on the cheap.

Also, the government would need to buy a vast amount of dog food to feed these strays and nurse them back to health. Do you see any fucking irony in that at all? They don't have the money to feed people but you want them to care for and feed fucking STRAYS so that THEY can later be eaten by MOTHERFUCKINGPEOPLE!
That would mean the dealing with the dogs is not a top priority period.

a question with what should be an obvious answer, but: why not?

Because in a pinch I could hunt wild animals that are more healthy but that is not to say I wouldn't consider nursing a stray back to health.

what's the difference? the Dog's immune system obviously failed, or else it wouldn't be so diseased and sick. anyways, who has the time to wait for dogs to gain health for eating? it's unproductive.

Their immune system failed due to enviorment

There is a very good reason to cremate the bodies of animals that could potentially carry disease. it's not "imperialist thinking", it's common sense; if one dog was to have a contagion, then it could quickly spread to all other dogs that actually are healthy, or even worse, to humans.
True but you need more heat then a open fire and odds are the diseases these strays carry would clear up rapidly if the dog was in the right enviorment.