Is offending a group of people always bad?

Dog rescue in Thailand

These dogs are lucky. Without the intervention of animal advocates and undercover informers, they were headed for slaughter houses in Asia's dog meat black market.

Thousands of dogs have been rounded up in Thailand by criminal gangs to be served as dog meat in restaurants in Vietnam, China or South Korea.

The cruelty aspect of the overall practice is - is truly terrible from start to finish.

Dog is not traditionally eaten in Thailand, but there are millions of strays in the Buddhist nation, so for years, criminal gangs captured street dogs and struggled them across Asia.

The scale is quite large. It's somewhere between two to 2.5 million dogs that are estimated to be consumed every year in Korea. Vietnam is estimated to consume about five million dogs a year in this trade.

It has to be seen to be believed. Stuffed in to cages, tightly packed with broken bones, backs, even crushed heads while they're being transported, to being force fed in holding farms in Vietnam, often skinned alive, burnt alive, boiled alive, you name it, and all this in front of other dogs and dogs, as very sentient beings, they know what's happening. And the cruelty is abhorrent. Plenty of that happens in Korea 'cause they believe that pain inflicted will improve the flavour of the meat.

But in the last two years in Thailand, things have changed. Locals in Thailand's border regions working with animal rights groups and Thai police have been uncovering plans to move the dogs for slaughter and intercepting them. For the locals, passing on the information is dangerous work.

These people who are informing and following them are in danger, they have to work undercover. We don't publish their names anywhere, there are no pictures of them because they - yes, it is a risky - it is a risk for them and I admire them for what they're doing.

Many of the dogs the Soi Dog Foundation has helped rescue come here to its sanctuary in Phuket to be rehabilitated and sometimes adopted by people in the USA, Canada or the UK.

*Warning; includes footage of animal abuse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5O9wc9xZze0

Hour long documentary about Soi Dog;

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2015/s4393318.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM

Ok, my own opinion I think thats cruel to do to an animal but I could easily be on the side that I get chicken which is an animal, I eat beef which is an animal I eat eggs which is an unborn chicken and milk from a cows Uttar when you think about it some of that is gross nut that is our culture. In their culture and way of life thats normal not different than ours. As a Jedi, I tend to try to be peaceful with others, their beliefs, views, politics, ect. But my own opinion someone is always gonna be offended. Its often a rarity in America especially to say or do something where someone wont stop see what your doing and look at you with anger and offense in their hearts and they dont have any problem telling you either. Do I like offending people of course not but you also have a right to keep your mouth shut and your opinion to yourself. I am not trying to be offensive but we live in a world where everyone thinks they should have a say in what joe smoe is doing over yonder and how he or she doesnt like it. Keep in mind I follow our tenents and maxims of our temple but there is moral conduct we should follow as Jedi. But bottomline your gonna offend someone somewhere its in the manner you deal with it. There is no emotion, there is peace there is no Chaos, there is Harmony.

I see no advantage to taking offense.

Wescli Wardest wrote: My issue is with causing another living entity to suffer because it is thought to make it taste better.

But there is no dehumanization being done. And the only reason I wrote the people I did is because they are the ones that could implement change in their areas.

This is exactly the crux of the discussion, however, generalising an entire ethinicity as a means of identification, erases individuality as means of dehumanisation. So yes dehumanisation by generalisation and racial prejudice is clearly committed from the start in this thread. No one is saying you, so there's no reason to identify with relevance; we are only talking about the issues of the topic. The two concepts are inappropriately and unreasonably mixed, therefore is a means of racial prejudice. As a result, the thread needs to choose to stay on the topic of offending people; or create another topic on torture, and racial prejudice.

Wescli Wardest wrote: As to justice… I agreed that the idea of justice is simple. It is in the execution that degrees of difficulty are found. And I explained why that is so. And I explained why because the concept of “fair” may be universally translated but again, its execution is not universally agreed on. And that is why we are having the debate we are having now. In China, there is a group of people that believe their treatment of a life form is fair and I do not. :dry:

Only good reason will support a claim. So please refer me to the post number where you explained where the practice of justice is difficult? The context is offenders that committed a wrong is clear and simple, and therefore always bad. But, if someone were to disagree that offenders are not always bad; let the reason speak to support the claim, otherwise the claim is unfounded and unsupported by reason; i.e. unreasonable

rugadd wrote: I see no advantage to taking offense.

Amen Brother :laugh:

Entropist wrote: Only good reason will support a claim. So please refer me to the post number where you explained where the practice of justice is difficult?

That'd be post #242165 . You even responded to it in #242243, if I recall correctly. On the other hand, your "demonstration" that justice is simple amounted to asserting that it is something people either innately have or don't have. But as you said, only good reason will support a claim, no mere assertion can. So would you kindly point us to the post where you supported anything you said so far? Thank you.

The context is offenders that committed a wrong is clear and simple, and therefore always bad.

No. That is the context, and the question is whether it is bad any of the time, some of the time or all of the time. You keep insisting that it always is and your reason is that offense is an injustice. I'm sorry but choosing a label for it doesn't an argument make. If you take this position, you have a burden to substantiate it.

But, if someone were to disagree that offenders are not always bad; let the reason speak to support the claim, otherwise the claim is unfounded and unsupported by reason; i.e. unreasonable

No, that's not how reasoned arguments work. Dismissing your unfounded claim does not amount to making a claim of one's own. Until such time where you can support your claim with something, I need nothing to dismiss it as unsupported. It is if and only if I were to make a claim of my own that I'd need to bring forth any reason. And as a matter of fact, whenever Wescli - or myself for that matter - have made any positive claims, we did provide reasons to support them. You, on the other hand, didn't even once. Five pages worth of thread later, we're still waiting.