[quote name='Meluhhan' date='04 March 2016 - 08:23 AM' timestamp='1457059525' post='117967']Taboos against dog-eating have existed in the Indian subcontinent as well. From Bhagavad Gita 5:18[/quote]
You missed my point: there specifically was no taboo against dog-eating in Korea, rather the inverse: Koreans ate and eat dog as part of a long-standing tradition. Christians agitated under an excuse of "animal rights" to get dog-eating curtailed/to make it controversial, only because it was an ancestral Korean tradition. Compare with how christians in India employ the inverse technique for the same end of curtailing heathen traditions: christians want to get the ban on cow-eating revoked under an excuse of "right to food" in India's case, also in order to antagonise against long-standing heathen tradition: the Hindu tradition against eating cows.
Christianity antagonises tradition and uses "secular" and "democratic" sounding excuses for it. That was my point.
Even wackypedia hints at the Korean issue. Wacky page as at today:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat_consumption_in_South_Korea
The same "animal rights" activists never demonstrated against christian and islamic demons deliberately butchering Hindu cows and demanding this be made into their right.
It is exclusively a christoislamic iconoclasm against Hinduism.
(And I'm aware that dog-eating among Hindus is not considered okay for/among the mainstream. This was so since the Vedam. But even in the Vedam, the Hindu Gods are recognised as the Sarvaatman who exist in all, e.g. Rudra is said to be [the very aatman of] dogs, and [CORRECTION] PuruShottama is also present in the aatman of those [heathen Hindu humans] who eat dogs, etc. Because the Hindoo Gods are the aatman of all humans in Hindoo society, other animals, trees, and the rest of nature. Everything, basically.)
You missed my point: there specifically was no taboo against dog-eating in Korea, rather the inverse: Koreans ate and eat dog as part of a long-standing tradition. Christians agitated under an excuse of "animal rights" to get dog-eating curtailed/to make it controversial, only because it was an ancestral Korean tradition. Compare with how christians in India employ the inverse technique for the same end of curtailing heathen traditions: christians want to get the ban on cow-eating revoked under an excuse of "right to food" in India's case, also in order to antagonise against long-standing heathen tradition: the Hindu tradition against eating cows.
Christianity antagonises tradition and uses "secular" and "democratic" sounding excuses for it. That was my point.
Even wackypedia hints at the Korean issue. Wacky page as at today:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat_consumption_in_South_Korea
Quote:The consumption of dog meat in South Korea, where it is known as "Gaegogi" (Korean: ê°Å고기), has a long history originating during Three Kingdoms of Korea, AD C. 57.[1] In recent years, it has been controversial both in South Korea and around the world, due to animal rights and sanitary concerns.(Note: the reference to this being made controversial only since "recent years" is actually a secularised reference to christianity.)
The same "animal rights" activists never demonstrated against christian and islamic demons deliberately butchering Hindu cows and demanding this be made into their right.
It is exclusively a christoislamic iconoclasm against Hinduism.
(And I'm aware that dog-eating among Hindus is not considered okay for/among the mainstream. This was so since the Vedam. But even in the Vedam, the Hindu Gods are recognised as the Sarvaatman who exist in all, e.g. Rudra is said to be [the very aatman of] dogs, and [CORRECTION] PuruShottama is also present in the aatman of those [heathen Hindu humans] who eat dogs, etc. Because the Hindoo Gods are the aatman of all humans in Hindoo society, other animals, trees, and the rest of nature. Everything, basically.)