some russian author wrote long ago that how a society treats her prison inmates is a good indicator of how civilised that society is. well, i think how a society treats her pets is a pretty good indicator of how humane that society is. Needless to say, Taiwan ranks among the bottom…
When I first went to China (1979-82), dog ownership was banned in cities but not in the countryside. Actually I think they should have kept it that way.
Excellent point, ar-grp (animal rights group? artificial rats going rotton on purpose? axl rose gives riptides problems?). Great minds think alike. (See the Ghandi quote below…)
It’s so true; you can tell how far a culture has developed by how it treats its non-human inhabitants. That being said (and I make it clear that I am NOT defending the treatment of most animals in Taiwan), Taiwan is “new money”. In most western countries, we have, for the last two or three generations, had the resources to embrace humanitarianism because we are not fighting for our next penny/meal, etc. In Taiwan, the wealth is a new thing, and the mindsets have not yet adjusted to the resources. The result: many continue to abuse their pets/partners/children/prisoners/nannies/labourers without the realisation that this behaviour is wrong. Unfortunately, this behaviour exists all over the world, but the prevalence tends to be in the traditionally poor, “machismo” cultures. If the Taiwanese government wishes to be known as more than another backward Asian production country, it will have to take steps to embrace some of the kinder aspects of society.
That being said, what to do about Japan??? Does anyone know the specifics of human/animal rights in Japan (clearly “old money”)?
This is my favourite quotation of all time:
[quote][color=indigo]
The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.
Mahatma Gandhi, 1869 - 1948
[/color][/quote]
I took my mutt to the vet in HK once. The vet was a very nice woman from Australia and had been working in HK for some time. I said that she must have seen some appalling cases of abuse. She looked me straight in the eye and said that it was nothing compared to what she’d seen in the UK where dog fighting and other illegal sports were flourishing. I felt pretty stupid.
It is mistreatment just owning a dog in Taipei. Animals should not be locked up in a house all day, only to be taken outside to crap on the sidewalk at night if they are lucky. A dog should run on the beach and in the forest or at least romp in a grassy yard. Just because we choose to live surrounded by tiles and cement does not mean that it is fair to inflict such conditions on other living creatures. Ever wonder why there are so many dogs chained on Taipei rooftops that bark and howl from morning till night, day after day, for their whole pathetic lives? Anyone who owns a dog in Taipei is selfish and cruel.
My folks live in the countryside in northern Scotland and they have several badger setts around their property. Three times in past few years my dad has found the setts dug up and the kittens stolen to be raised for the fine British tradition of badger-baiting. His “next door neighbour,” a farmer, once caught three guys in the act, smashed them up pretty badly with their own shovel and almost went to jail for his troubles, despite the fact that two of them were armed with pistols. They’d driven all the way from Manchester to get badgers for a “show.”
Now, the authorities have men hidden all over the area every night during the breeding season to prevent these animal lovers from taking the kits – there’s no point in capturing adults, you see, because they don’t know how to “fight” properly and so its less fun watching them get torn to pieces. They take the young and train them, so that it takes longer for them to be killed, thereby increasing the fun factor for the spectators.
Britain – a nation of animal lovers. 
[quote]Anyone who owns a dog in Taipei is selfish and cruel.
[/quote]
Phew! I’m OK then – I live in Bitan. My dog has a large yard to run around in and a massive overgrown graveyard for proper runs. She used to have the mountain behind us as well, but she’s a bit old for that now. In fact, she spends most of her time sleeping and only comes outside with reluctance. I took her off the street about 15 years ago and I’d say she’s had a pretty good life.
PIGS ARSE
. . .except you Amos. I hope you’ll forgive me and will come for chess and whatnot on Sunday anyway. 
But its not confined to the Brits, unfortunately. Ever heard of quokka soccer? Now there’s a real man’s sport! http://www.moggies.co.uk/articles/2003/aust_quokka.html
Actually, many of the people who have dogs in Taipei (I’m referring to expats mostly, I think, but some Taiwanese are enlightened regarding animal rights) are giving the dogs much better lives and much happier conditions than the dogs would otherwise have dreamed possible. True, it may be nasty to bring dogs to Taiwan and the conditions are certainly less than ideal, but if thedogs have lived here their whole lives, being given a loving home will be the best thing that will ever have happened to them. Would they be happier if we let them be beaten to death by the canine death squads? Perhaps since that’s the opposite of giving them a good home, you would interpret it as “selfless and kind”? :x
I assume that the whole post of Mother Theresa’s was a flame. However, if not…
You clearly don’t know the first thing about keeping a dog, or what sort of comraderie is possible and the kind of affection a dog can get and give.
I don’t want to bore you with the details of our dog (my third rescued from the street in Taipei), but suffice it to say that tarring me and my treatment of my dog with the brush of stereotyping is really disgraceful.
[By the way, animals do not have rights; only people do. People have the responsibility to behave humanely towards animals. Animals have no more rights than plants or insects. You are assigning a human characteristic to something that is not human. That’s anthropomorphizing, nothing more.]
Life is hard, then you die.
I assume that Wolf’s post was merely meant as a flame. People have legal rights only because they create legal systems and assign rights and responsibilities. Often the subjects of others’ “rights” are not willing participants in such legal systems, but that’s too bad: might makes right so they must comply. Both people and animals can be the subject of supposed “rights” created by others. What gives people the authority to say one may kill a fish for food but not a horse or a whale? To suggest that only people have rights and animals do not is absurd. People ARE animals, the same as dogs, cats and rats. Because we are more powerful, however, we often feel we have a right to do with other creatures as we wish. While you may feel that animals other than humans do not have rights, others feel that all, or at least many, living creatures should be treated with respect and compassion – have a right to be treated that way. A right is not a human characteristic; it’s just that you may believe that. And in fact, in many societies other creatures have an actual legal right to be treated with a certain dignity. Torture your dog in the states and you may end up facing criminal penalties.
I do wish to add to my prior comments, though. Those who take in abandoned or mistreated creatures and care for them are to be commended.
While I am not trying to start an argument, I must state that Wolf is correct: “Animals do not have rights.” The rights which animals have are merely extensions of human rights. In other words, the so-called “animal rights” are assigned by humans.
This is easily proved. Suppose you have four people in the woods: A, B, C, D. “A” is a bystander. “B” and “C” kill “D.” Do the parents, relatives, etc. of “D” have legal recourse. Yes.
Now you have four dogs in the woods: A, B, C, D. “A” is a bystander. “B” and “C” kill “D.” Do the parents, relatives, etc. of “D” have legal recourse. No. The same applies to bears, birds, cats, lions, tigers, deer, elephants, etc. etc.
WHEREBY, the so-called “rights” which animals have are only those given to them by humans. According to the laws of nature, animals have no rights. Put in another way, without human intervention, animals have no rights. Read Darwin.
So what rights does a human being have, if he is in the wild poaching or trying to capture a bear cub, and along comes the mamma bear… Or how about a human being swimming in the ocean who finds himself stalked by a white shark…
What rights will the human being assert in such situations? Could we say in such situation, the bear or shark has the right to kill the human being, and the human has only whatever rights the bear or shark decide to afford him?
Hartzell, apparently you’re not familiar with the Canine Bill of Rights. While my dog is a little rusty, I’ll attempt to translate the first few provisos:
Article 1
No canine shall be compelled to obey any dictate abridging the freedom of speech, or of the right of canines to peaceably assemble, to howl, bark or growl and to petition their servants for a redress of grievances.
Article 2
Ample provisions being necessary to the well-being of a canine, the right of a canine to keep and bear pig ears, hooves, rawhides and bones shall not be infringed.
Article 3
A well-defined territory being essential to the security of a canine, the right of a canine to sniff the butts of other canines, the crotches of humans, and to urinate and defecate where one pleases shall not be infringed, without regard for whether one’s servant collects the defecation in plastic baggies.
Anyway, I won’t bore you with all the other provisions, dealing with scratching, fleas, flatulence and the like, but suffice it to say, dogs and other animals have elaborate systems of rights and responsibilities, which you, because you apparently do not speak the language, are unfamiliar with. But they are rights as surely as your human “rights.” Being bigger, stronger and insensitive to their rights, however, we humans often presume that ours are the only rights on this planet and we egregiously violate the most basic rights of other species. For the future of our planet it is essential that we humans learn to recognize that all species have rights and should be treated with dignity and respect.
Animals have no fundamental rights; only people do
I challenge the fundamental premise of the animal rights movement that animals are superior to human beings. That premise is inescapable when you examine the policies they advocate & their invariable preference for the well-being of animals, and their disregard for humans and their livelihoods. But let me make it perfectly clear that my belief that animals have no fundamental rights is not equivalent to saying that human beings have no moral obligation to protect animals when they can. The animal rights movement knew what it was doing when it deliberately adopted the label animal rights. The concept of rights is very powerful in the American political lexicon.
Animals often treat each other with no respect, and they have no redress, absent human intervention on their behalf. Regardless of that, I believe that if people use animals to achieve their goals, they must do so responsibly, so that we don’t eliminate any species from the planet. That would be wantonly stupid and selfish.
Source: Rush Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought To Be, p. 102-6, published 1992
Animal rights movement is secular humanism vs. Bible
In my opinion, at the root of the assertion that animals have rights is the belief that animals and men are equal in creation, that man evolved from apes, and that creation is an allegorical myth contained in the Bible. There is no escaping the connection between secular humanism and animal rights activism.
The Bible teaches that God created man in His own image and that He gave him dominion over animals and nature. God did not create animals in His own image. Even if you reject the Bible as the Word of God – even if you believe in evolution and disbelieve in creation – you must still admit that man is the only earthly creature capable of rational thought.
Human beings are the primary species on this planet. Animals and everything else are subspecies whose position is subordinate to that of humans. Humans have a responsibility toward lower species and must treat them humanely. Humanely. Why not treat them animally? Because that would mean killing them.
Source: Rush Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought To Be, p. 104-6, published 1992
What was it that you found so enlightening about Rush’s remarks, his mistaken belief that animals never intervene on another animal’s behalf or his disbelief in evolution?
Mother Theresa, if you are so concerned about being “thankful, considerate, and forgiving”, you shouldn’t be calling Rush Limbaugh an idiot. Maybe you should meditate more, and speak less.
Well Jimmy, Marky and Casey, I’m glad that 6 months after joining Segue you finally learned how to post, but don’t let mommy find out you’re on the Internet or you’ll be in big trouble.