Discussion » Food & Drink » Ban dog meat: Draft law

  • wrote:
    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/language_tips/cdaudio/2010-01/27/content_9385724.htm

    A proposed draft of China's first law on animal welfare prohibits the consumption of dog and cat meat. Those consuming the meat could face fines of up to 5,000 yuan ($730) and up to 15 days' detention.

    Organizations or units found guilty of selling the meat can be fined anywhere between 10,000 yuan to 500,000 yuan, according to the proposed draft law that is being drawn up by a panel of legal experts, the Beijing-based Mirror Evening News reported.

    Chang Jiwen, a researcher with the law institute under the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, who headed the panel, said "There are still many difficulties to overcome before (legislators) include the article against consumption of dog and cat meat into the draft law,"

    "I hope the problem can be solved as soon as possible, although it will be solved sooner or later,"

    The prohibition would not affect the common Chinese citizen's life a lot, Chang said. With an improving living standard, very few people still eat dog or cat meat in China, he said.

    Though most Western cultures view the consumption of dog or cat meat as a taboo, the practice has been considered a cultural tradition for those living in China's southern provinces.

    The proposed draft has sparked a fierce debate.

    "I don't know what we'll do if the law is passed. A majority of our customers eat dog meat as a habit," said Tian Zhiqing, a waitress at the Dog Meat King restaruant in Beijing's Xuanwu district.

    The restaurant, which has been in operation for 12 years, generates a monthly business of nearly 300,000 yuan, she said.

    "Besides stewed dog meat hotpot, too, is extremely popular here."

    Wang Yan, a staff member at the Beijing-based Association of Small Animal Protection, said: "Cats and dogs are human beings' friends. We are always opposed to eating such animals. Those who eat them must definitely be punished."

    More than 48 percent were in favor of fining or punishment of those found guilty of eating dog or cat flesh, while nearly 45 percent were against punishment.

    Before being adopted as a law, the draft must go through the State Council and then receive three readings at the National People's Congress Standing Committee, the top legislature.

    Questions:

    1. What are the proposed legal actions against people consuming dog/cat meat?

    2. Which part of China is most dog meat consumed?

    3. Where will the draft bill receive three readings before being passed into law?

    Answers:

    1. A fine of up to 5,000 yuan ($730) and up to 15 days' detention.

    2. China's southern provinces.

    3. National People's Congress Standing Committee.
  • wrote:
    haha, the last day has come.

    Do you eat dog meat?
  • Shane
    Shane wrote:
    Side-note: Eating dog meat causes guys to get erections. (Really.... no joke)
  • wrote:
    yes Sir,

    I did not eat dog meat for many many years.

    Shane,
    "eating dog meat causes guys to get erections. (Really.... no joke)"
    haha, that's the reason you eat dog meat? 壮阳?
  • 爱米粒Emily
    Interesting priority of law drafting.
  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:
    only one thing about this article, taboo is a religious ban. Eat pig is a taboo for Muslim and Jews. Is not my own use of this word, the antropologists use this word with this sense.
    so: ¨Though most Western cultures view the consumption of dog or cat meat as a taboo¨ is not truth.
    this thing is seen like a strange habit or a disgusting habit, depends each person.
  • wrote:
    Adolfo,

    You are right.
    Just like French, they eat snail, from my perspective, it is disgusting, haha
    I will never relate snail-eating with delicacy. But I do not prevent others to eat snail, if they like. But Muslim are a little too aggressive, I do not like.

    But you have to compromise with this kind article, not so many people like to have a deeper understanding of foreign culture or habits.
  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:
    also in some parts the spain, the people eat snails :P (I never ?_? puaj puaj XD)

    Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture by Marvin Harris
    this book is very famous and very good (the point of view is materialism for analysis of these habits, is not collect examples, is try to explain why the people eat or nor eat somethings in some cultures), believe me, is amazing.In the university when learn Antropology with his books.

    you can see a little part here, http://www.slideshare.net/AutoSurfRestarter/good-to-eat-riddles-of-food-and-culture-by-marvin-harris

  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    I'm a big fan of dog meat, especially during trips to Korea. I enjoy it now and again here in Beijing, but only during the winter.

    I don't see anything wrong with the consumption of canine.

    If I were to sound off against any elements of animal consumption, I'd be more inclined to raise the issue that livestock farming emits 40% more emissions than all mechanical transport combined, and that industrial shrimp fishing leads to over 140 different aquatic species getting caught up in their industrial-sized nets and as a result, thinning their populations.
  • Pavoir Sponse
    Pavoir Sponse wrote:
    This bit of legislation baffles me. What is the problem with eating dog meat? Also the article seem to equate the eating of dog with poverty, this would also appear somewhat misguided. Last time I bought it, it was quite expensive (but maybe I got ripped off)...
  • Save Our Planet
    I was running this afternoon and I saw a young puppy lying dead behind the bushes under a bridge. Poor little puppy. May your soul rest peacefuly.
  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:
    Only tried dog meat a few times in Korea and it was heavily marinated, so I can't really say whether I like it for certain. Legislating against it seems a bit silly though: is this to do with improving the international image of China given that a lot of Western people view its consumption as backward?

    Also, I couldn't let this slide:

    [quote]
    only one thing about this article, taboo is a religious ban. Eat pig is a taboo for Muslim and Jews. Is not my own use of this word, the antropologists use this word with this sense.
    so: ¨Though most Western cultures view the consumption of dog or cat meat as a taboo¨ is not truth.
    this thing is seen like a strange habit or a disgusting habit, depends each person.
    [/quote]

    The word taboo was incorporated into the English language from the days of Captain Cook in the 18th century after encountering Tongan tribes that used it signify something that was used only in religious or sacred practices, and was forbidden from use in daily life. However, after its introduction through Cook's journals, the word has gone on to be used in more than solely religious terms and is commonly used by native speakers to mean something that is socially unacceptable or distatesful. The part that says 'Though most Western cultures view the consumption of dog or cat meat as a taboo'' is very accurate given the current meaning of the world as it is used in the major English speaking countries.
  • Peter Baird
    Peter Baird wrote:
    There is a restaurant called Dog Meat King? Hilarious.

    I personally like dogs better as pets than as food. Dog meat tasted like spam. And dog penis...that is some nasty shit.

    However, I don't have a problem with others eating dog. It's not like they are an endangered species or anything.
  • Save Our Planet
    I grew up with dogs. It's impossible for me. Dude.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    While Dog Meat King may face some troubles in the future, we can rest assured with the knowledge that Donkey King will never die.
  • Save Our Planet
    To those who eat dogs: take Viagra. It has better effect in getting erections.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    I eat dogs because they're tasty and it fills the iconoclastic void in my heart.

    For erections, I prefer more novel uses with Fido.

    Just kidding... or am I?
  • Save Our Planet
    If your gril can strip in a way like sexy belly dancing, that will get you good erections.
  • Pete DeMola
    Pete DeMola wrote:
    Why do that when you can just devour dog dick?

    *shakes head in disbelief*
  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:
    @Daniel Godfrey

    If you want classify the human practises and you want to be precise in this work, you need use precise words. You can not put in the same level, under the same words, things like incest, cannibalism (in the ambiet of sacred ban) and the things that the people from a tribe, or society considers disgusting. But, yeah, you can say ¨taboo sacred¨ and ¨taboo normal¨, if you like the patchs.
    If you want argue about words and the use in some language, ok, you win, ¨ I'm not a native speaker ¨
    if you want to argue about ideas, then we can talk.

    For me, all Taboo is disgusting.
    But not all practise disgusting is taboo. (for example, spit in the streets is taboo in Europe? where In the cities or in the towns? or burp at the table)
    Disgusting is a necessary condition, but not sufficient.

    If you recognize a difference between ¨incest¨ and ¨eat dog¨, using the words that you like, for me is ok.
  • Save Our Planet
    If Beyonce becomes my gril friend, I will try the dog dick. Sorry dogs. Ha ha.
  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:
    @ Daniel Godfrey
    Althought, maybe, you will say me: I have used ¨unacceptable or distatesful¨ not disgusting, spit in the streets is disgusting, but not distatesful.
    ok
    If one man punch one woman, is distatesful, but is a taboo in Europe??
    Kill one person is distatesful, is Taboo?? but when this person kills his own father. Then is a killer and something more.
    Rape one person is ditasteful, but when this person belongs to his own family, when this person is his own mother? then what?
    is very distatesful + something more, and this more, where it come from? The sacred, the natural things (¨go against the nature¨ ¨Contranatura¨ this is the expresion of the priest).
  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:
    Adolfo: Dude, what!?

    Let me just repeat what I have said and try to be a little clearer.

    You said:

    'only one thing about this article, taboo is a religious ban. Eat pig is a taboo for Muslim and Jews. Is not my own use of this word, the antropologists use this word with this sense.so: ¨Though most Western cultures view the consumption of dog or cat meat as a taboo¨ is not truth''

    I said:
    'However, after its introduction through Cook's journals, the word has gone on to be used in more than solely religious terms and is commonly used by native speakers to mean something that is socially unacceptable or distatesful'
    (and managed to misplace an s in distasteful into the bargain!)

    So, I'll repeat what I was trying to say before:

    The word taboo is not as rigid as you think it is. I grant that you might think it a technical term when applied in the word of anthropology based on its origin as a religious/sacred ban, but that is not how the majority of people that use the word in Modern English intend it. As I said, the word has evolved from the original Tongan/Polynesian meaning of a sacred ban to a more general meaning of a socially unacceptable or disdainful thing.

    Incest and Cannibalism fall under the remit of the word taboo in that they have certain ideological concepts bound up in them: sex with family is something considered by modern society to be wrong as is feeding on human flesh.

    It has nothing to do with some idea of going against nature or sacred. It's just that we now live in a society that considers these things to be that way: in 19th century England, people didn't have any problems with marrying their first cousins. In the same century, a girl was considered to be a perfect age to be married around 14-15.

    Let me try to explain the word in an easier way:

    Things like killing someone is not really a taboo because we have words for that kind of thing: crime. Being a criminal does not really count as committing taboo because most societies are set up with strict laws that govern most behaviour.

    It's when you get things that are unacceptable by a society but not really punished by the law: incest I think is unlawful in some countries but there's still an unease about legislating against the choice of sexual partner between two consenting adult.

    Killing someone is definitely a crime but eating a dead corpse would still be considered unacceptable because people in modern society have this idea of a human life being somehow more special than the animals we eat.

    And pedophilia is also a crime, but I think platonically dating a 7 year old girl would be considered taboo even if there was no sexual contact or abuse: we still consider it wrong, even if it's not unlawful. This is taboo.


  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)
    ...

    Hahahaha ... there seem to be a slight shift among some of you, from dog meat to "supplementary Chinese food or medicine"? So let's explore that ... ...

    I dont know much, just the bits and pieces, and as far as helping men's erection is concerned, Chinese delicacies such as "water fish" or alligator tortoise (甲鱼,水鱼) is highly recommended ...

    Among Chinese medicine, ox dick and deer dick are commonly found ... and dried seahorses is supposed to work wonders too ...

  • Shane
    Shane wrote:
    Don't tell me you don't keep a little dog-meat in the bed-side drawer for nights when you drink too much whiskey.

    We have all been there
  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:
    @Daniel Godfrey.

    Taboo also has a component important, the silent, do you know the boardgame with the same name? The image is a face with a hand in the mouth. Keep silent, don´t say the word.
    Look the others comments in the post, the people are kidding about this ¨taboo¨, read the comment of Shane is very funny. About ¨eat dog¨ you can talk without problems, maybe the other person in front of you, put strange faces or kidding etc... but you can talk, say something (althought the other persons not chance their point of view).
    What is taboo for me? Taboo is all this things that, for example, I can not write here in this forum without someone delete them.

    Using your terms, how you can called this two kinds of taboo? the species is -Taboo- and the sub-species is ...? From my pint of view exist a difference, and what is the words for distinguish them?

    I believe in the sentence of Wittgenstein: ¨The meaning of a word is its use in language¨. And the speakers of each country have their own needs. And here (because you say something very interesant about the taboo and laws) is maybe the ¨problem¨ between our uses of Taboo. In Spain, after many centuries under power of catholic church, we still have to purge of our laws the Catholic Taboos, so for this reason we need to be very precise with our words in spanish in this theme. The spanish peope are fighting for take off this of the laws, still we are working for the separation between Church and State.
  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:
    I get the impression this is going to be like hitting my head against a wall...

    If your contention is 'Though most Western cultures view the consumption of dog or cat meat as a taboo¨ is not truth'' and you are suggesting the responses on this forum proves this, let me address that first.

    This forum is not representative of Western cultures or societies('cultures' is probably the wrong word to use in the original article): I would find it difficult to believe that any expatriate community could be considered as representative of their respective home countries. Put another way, whilst the people on this forum have no problem with dog meat, that isn't to say that the majority of people in Western societies wouldn't consider it to be 'unnatural' or socially unacceptable. People in the UK joke about eating dog in the same derisive way that you'd maybe think about people living in huts: something cute and primitive that would totally unacceptable to do in a developed civilization.

    Again, I think you're not really grasping the definition of the word and seem to want to apply it to everything that is forbidden. The crucial part of its definition is in the 'socially': something that is deemed by popular opinion and not by law, an authority or some form of goverment. Stuff that gets removed on this forum will mostly be removed based on the judgement of someone in charge who perceives the writing to be against the code of conduct or rules of the discussion board, not because it's socially unacceptable to some people here.


  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:
    And just to be clear on something, you're saying that you believe the meaning of a word is defined by its use in language. The original article that you say uses taboo in a 'wrong' way is written in English. The word itself is derived from the notes of an English speaking explorer. You have a pretty good speaker of English(I'm arrogant about my English, sorry!) telling you that your conception of the word is a little off. And I'm not trying to be hostile or abusive here, but your command of English is not as good as the author of the article posted originally.

    And yet here you are, arguing with me that this word means something different to what the original author and I understand it to mean in the English-speaking world!

    My argument has always been a linguistic one, not an ideological one. You suggested that the original use of the word taboo was wrong. That is the issue.
  • 哎呀
    哎呀 wrote:
    In China, many dogs and cats killed for food are stray dogs and cats and some of them are even stolen from their owners. They lack of proper quarantine, thus their meat may contain deadly virus

    The brutal way to kill them is beyond anyone's imagination, such as throw an alive cat into boiling water...
  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:
    @ Daniel Godfrey.

    The practise socially unacceptable for a group or society is ¨taboo¨? ok, perfect, I told you, I don´t care the words, I care the ideas behind them.
    I believe that exist two kinds of -Practises socially unacceptable for a group or society- (taboo- using your use of this word).

    In one kind, the people can talk about them, can laugh, can kidding and can be ironic, as you wish, they can say somehting pro- or against. You said that [...] People in the UK joke about eating dog in the same derisive way that you'd maybe think about people living in huts: something cute and primitive that would totally unacceptable to do in a developed civilization.[...]

    In other kind, the people keep silent. the people doesn´t talk. I don´t think that the people in Uk kidding about theThe practise socially unacceptable for a group or society is ¨taboo¨? ok, perfect, I told you, I don´t care the words, I care the ideas behind them.
    I believe that exist two kinds of -Practises socially unacceptable for a group or society- (taboo- using your use of this word).
    In one kind, the people can talk about them, can laugh, can kidding and can be ironic, as you wish, they can say somehting pro- or against. You said that [...] People in the UK joke about eating dog in the same derisive way that you'd maybe think about people living in huts: something cute and primitive that would totally unacceptable to do in a developed civilization.[...]

    In other kind, the people keep silent. the people doesn´t talk. I don´t think that the people in Uk kidding about the incestm or pedophilia, the common people don´t talk about this. So for me there are two kinds of Taboos (using your use of this word).


    You said ¨I get the impression this is going to be like hitting MY HEAD against a wall..¨, ok, I give you back your joke -I get the impression this is going to be for me like try to teach a blind to see-

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:
    @ Daniel Godfrey

    you said: ¨You suggested that the original use of the word taboo was wrong¨ ?_? really??

    all taboos for the Tongans had the dress of religion, this is the thing that captain James Cook percieved. If not what? all his merit is a simple translation ¨taboo¨ for ¨forbidden¨. and when you want to be -cool- use ¨taboo¨ in the place of ¨forbidden¨?

    Do you know what? I can say that I use taboo in the sense of Tongans, and you can say that you (and the author of the article) in the english way.
    All people happy, you ego is happy and my ego is happy.
  • Ms Bla
    Ms Bla wrote:
    In China, Minority of Man nationality can not eat dog meat thats all.
  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:
    Maria: Just out of curiousity, how do you feel about boiling lobsters or other seafood?
  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:
    Adolfo: Change your spelling to Tabu and you're golden!

    'Among the many discoveries of Captain James Cook was a linguistic one, the term taboo. In a journal entry from 1777, Cook says this word "has a very comprehensive meaning; but, in general, signifies that a thing is forbidden.... When any thing is forbidden to be eat, or made use of, they say, that it is taboo." Cook was in the Friendly Islands (now Tonga) at the time, so even though similar words occur in other Polynesian languages, the form taboo from Tongan tabu is the one we have borrowed. The Tongans used tabu as an adjective. Cook, besides borrowing the word into English, also made it into a noun referring to the prohibition itself and a verb meaning "to make someone or something taboo." From its origins in Polynesia the word taboo has traveled as widely as Cook himself and is now used throughout the English-speaking world.'

  • Ms Bla
    Ms Bla wrote:
    Gosh.... you make me sick
  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:
    Morally, I don't think eating dog is wrong unless you think there's something wrong with eating cows, pigs, or people.

    I just don't particularly care for the flavor. It's bland.
  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    @ Daniel Godfrey

    But really, your argument is very funny, I begin to think that you are kidding with me.

    a) I´m pretty good speaker of English(I'm arrogant about my English, sorry!) telling you that your conception of the word.

    If you are english philologist, or english teacher, good, teach me how to write, pronounce english, and also the meaning of the words for the common life (really I need this, because my english is really shit).
    But if I want to learn the meaning of ¨history¨, ¨atom¨, ¨happiness¨, ¨liberalism¨ and others words...., I will ask to expert in this ambits (physicists, economists, anthropologists....), Sorry I don´t ask these answers to english, spanish, german teachers...

    Anyway, if the thing is a fight between the linguistic competence, ok, I don´t have honors, but the Encyclopædia Britannica has them.

    ¨The prohibition of an action based on the belief that such behaviour is either too sacred and consecrated or too dangerous and accursed for ordinary individuals to undertake¨.
  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:
    Good idea, let's go with the definition of a word given by an Encyclopedia instead of the Oxford English Dictionary...it's not like the Dictionary is an accurate representation of the current meaning of words...oh, wait...

  • Adam
    Adam wrote:
    @Adolfo

    Good you found someone to help you to understand "the meaning of words in common life."

    All the article meant to say was that eating dog meat in the west, illegal or not, just isn't kosher.
  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:
    @ Daniel Godfrey
    no Encyclopedia?? ok...
    All these years learning using books, manuals, enciclopedias .... I have lost the time, instead, I had to read the dictionary of my language.
    When I need to know something (what is X) I must to go to the dictionary, right?

    Really, Can you see the difference between a word and the idea behind?
    for example, ¨democracy¨ (english) and ¨democracia¨ (spanish) are differents words for the same idea, do you know this?
    Second part, the people can pronunce words without know what they are saying, without have a clear idea (John Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding , Francis Bacon -Idola Fori- in Novum Organum). But this act of ¨say¨ is a use, althought without a clear idea behind, and then you can pick this use in a definition in a dictionary, but then you only picking up confused ideas.
    Example:
    ¨Democracy Organic¨ is the word for the facist goverment of my country during the age of Franco. You can find in the dictionary, the definition, but, do you know what? The idea of ¨Democracy Organic¨ is a contradicition in the plane of ideas, but has a definition in a dictionary.

    Use as you wish ¨Taboo¨, but the idea associated with ¨Taboo¨ will be confused and will serve for nothing, only for create confusion and for write articles appearing erudition.
    All the antropological articles trying to put the limits in the idea of ¨Taboo¨, is lost time, they only needed stop one person in the street and say, which is your use for -Taboo-?

    If Bertran Russel back to life....
  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:
    @ Adam
    Also we have the same uses in spanish, with the sounds ¨Tabú¨, and also we do the same stupids jokes about eat dogs or cats.
    My problem with this article is that you are not talking in a bar, in a club, in blog, in front of your friends... you are writting in a newspaper, you must to be precise in your words, and if you can say the same without use a problematic word, is better.
  • 哎呀
    哎呀 wrote:
    "Maria: Just out of curiousity, how do you feel about boiling lobsters or other seafood? "

    Daniel, I feel uncomfortable.

    If humans need to kill animals as their food, try to kill them humanely.
  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:
    @Adolfo,
    It seems like you're the kind of guy that would object to Gay Rights on the basis of Gay having a different original meaning, and because language is serious business we should use the technical words so as not to be understood.

    What you're talking about is the relationship between the signifier and the signified, which is fine, I totally agree! But you seem to get caught up in this idea that the signified has a rigid and permanent meaning, which doesn't work as the 'Gay' thing above illustrates: words and the meanings change with the people as language is a communal thing more than anything else. So again, look at the word taboo. The signified idea behind the signifying word was originally a religious protection but that signified meaning has long since faded from the lexicon of most English speakers. The only people, it seems, that still get worked up about the original use of the word are anthropologists who seem bent on staying as true to to the past as possible.

    But language does not work that way. My understanding of the word taboo is the common, non-anthropological understanding of the word taboo that is shared by the majority of English speakers.And that's all that really matters as this article was written in English and so, presumably, to an English-speaking audience.

    People like you irritate me because you identify a word that has a different original signified meaning than the one we use today and then get all pretentious about sticking to how it's meant originally or how it's meant in academic circles, as if language doesn't change.

    And by the way, this is the first time for me to invoke any particularly technical language in referencing Deridean concepts of language, and I doubt it would have been very helpful. Do you not think you should maybe try to express your arguments clearly in simple English first before you try adding weight to them with flimsy name-checking? It definitely has the opposite effect to the one you're intending!

    The bottom line is that the only person here who finds the use of the word taboo problematic is you. And I would venture to guess that the only people that would find this word problematic in the article are the minority of single-minded people that insist on sticking to the older meaning of a word rather than the commonly and currently accepted one. The article's sentence, both technically and ideological, was absolutely fine, and I find it a bit comic that you are arguing with me based on what an author writing in English is trying to say/signify when you have trouble with your own expression in English, let alone someone elses.

  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:
    @Maria,
    Okay, sure! I was just curious because I know lobster is primarily cooked in restaurants through that method but I think people care less about them because they don't make such cute pets as cats do!

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:
    @ Daniel Godfrey.
    I say you again: I´m not trying to change uses, the anthropological use and the common use are reals. However there is a difference between a prohibition founded in sacred things or in the Inertia society, what is the word that you use for each part? the same?

    then is ok, somepeople weave with heavy thread and others with fine, this is all.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    this part is the straw, adds nothing, only our egos, read if you wish

    a) And sorry, is not my guilty if the stupid priest plays with the original use of ¨married¨ for try to say not to the gay rights. This is proof that behind of the use of language there is a will to power. So, What do you want?

    b) the reference to John Locke and Francis Bacon is for know what I´m using, not for justify anything.

    c) You suppose that I´m a fanatic of ethimological:
    yeah, you have reason I always say when the people use ¨enervate¨, that the use is wrong, because the ethimology is take off (ex) the nerves (nervare). I enjoy very much doing this, is my secret pleasure, come on!!!!
    Do you think that i´m so stupid? The story of the changes of words is amazing.

    d) you said: People like you irritate me because you identify a word that has a different original signified meaning than the one we use today and then get all pretentious about sticking to how it's meant originally or how it's meant in academic circles, as if language doesn't change¨,

    Me too, and also I don´t like the people that play to be a demagogue and pretends be the Vox populi. The great demagogues in Atenas, always they were masters in using fuzzy words.
  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:
    a)I have no idea what you're talking about: the original meaning of gay is happy or merry. Nothing to do with marriage!

    b)You do two things in your writing that come across as pretty self-aggrandising given how you deploy them: reference authors or theorists with little need or explanation and invoke latin. I'm going to copy and paste a bit for posterity:

    - Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture by Marvin Harris
    this book is very famous and very good

    - (¨go against the nature¨ ¨Contranatura¨ this is the expresion of the priest).

    - I believe in the sentence of Wittgenstein: ¨The meaning of a word is its use in language¨.

    - Second part, the people can pronunce words without know what they are saying, without have a clear idea (John Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding , Francis Bacon -Idola Fori- in Novum Organum).

    - If Bertran Russel back to life....

    - and also I don´t like the people that play to be a demagogue and pretends be the Vox populi

    Now, referencing theorists and authors is fine if you're talking about something complicated or specific and you want to help the understanding of the recipient of your utterance. This is fine, but this is not what you do. Referencing short or simple sentences in the way that you just suggests you want people to know you've read these things and give legitimacy to what you're saying.

    Furthermore, I have no problem with latin in writing: some of my favourite writers use throwaway latin phrases, but when you use simple latin phrases like vox populi instead of simply writing 'voice of the people' and then go on to make basic English mistake that jeopardise the meaning of what you're trying to say...it just doesn't work.

    c)Etymological. No charge, even if they I don't teach English Language.

    d) Possibly the first time I've been accused of being a false-demagogue! I guess this sums up your problems I outlined in b)
  • Daniel
    Daniel wrote:
    And as this has now gone completely off the subject of the original thread, I'll stop posting here now before these get deleted for de-railing the topic.
  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:
    @Daniel Godfrey

    a) In my country the catholics argument against the marriage between persons of the same sex is a simple etymology of "matrimonio¨ - marriage. I thought that you was saying this. Sorry, I felt that you were putting over my back the flag of homophobic or ¨Tory¨
    b) This was a advice of lreading for Sun, look the comment. Good to Eat: Riddles of Food and Culture by Marvin Harris
    The others, in my country, the ¨correct¨ style is this, is you are using some ideas of arguments, you must to say who is your inspiration, if not taste like plagiarism. Of course with a footnote cites, but in a commet...
    c) We don´t need translate -Vox populi- in Spain, is the use common. And also other words in Latin. Sorry for foget this.
    d) If Bertran Russel back to life.... i was trying to offend like you with ¨I get the impression this is going to be like hitting my head against a wall... ¨
    e) After some of your uses -False demagogue- (in spanish there isn´t false demagogue, is like say ¨white snow¨), -Idiological- in ¨The article's sentence, both technically and ideological...¨ If you translate this in spanish, poor journalist...you are insulting him.
    So I think that we don´t speak the same language, I speak spanish with the dress of english...

    deleted for de-railing the topic, for me ok, our egos don´t let us another way.

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc