Miscellaneous News

eprash

Junior Member
Registered Member
LOL... don't provoke those Korean dog meat farmers.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Owners of dog meat farms slam first lady

Posted : 2023-04-21 17:01

Updated : 2023-04-22 14:40

First lady Kim Keon Hee faces criticism from a group representing dog meat farm owners for her recent remarks calling for an end to the country's contentious culture of eating dogs.

The group claimed Kim, who is neither a president nor a lawmaker, should maintain neutrality as the role of the first lady is supporting the president.

"Siding with animal rights groups, which are interest groups, and calling for banning dog meat consumption is obvious political activity that exceeds her authority," the group said in its statement, Thursday.

The comments came as Kim vowed to work to ban dog meat consumption within the tenure of the Yoon Suk Yeol government.

"I will try to put an end to dog meat consumption before the tenure of this government ends. I think that is my duty," she said during her luncheon with officials from animal rights groups, including Kara, on April 12.

After the remarks were reported through the media, both ruling and opposition parties appeared to support Kim.

Rep. Tae Yong-ho of the ruling People Power Party proposed a bill outlawing the butchery and sale of dog and cat meat on April 14. A day earlier, Rep. Kim Min-seok, the chief policymaker of the main opposition Democratic Party of Korea, also said his party will push to enact a special law banning dog meat consumption.

The owners said the rival parties as well as the first lady are neglecting people working in the dog meat industry, claiming that their remarks and action are an attempt to woo voters at a time when increasing numbers of people are living with companion animals in the country.

The group said banning dog consumption simply because an increasing number of people hate that culture is illogical.

"By that logic, if an increasing number of people hate Buddhism or Christianity, then the government can remove that religion," the group said. "Different religions coexist in this country. The Constitution also bans majorities from curtailing the liberties of minorities. Talking about social consensus only for dog meat is against the Constitution."

The group said it will hold a press conference in front of the presidential office in Yongsan next Tuesday to criticize the first lady for attempting to "take people's rights to eat away."

The first lady has openly supported a ban on all types of dog meat consumption.

During her interview with a vernacular newspaper in June last year, she said Korea and China are the only countries among big economies where people eat dog meat.

At the time, she said the issue can be solved through policies by, for example, supporting people working in the dog meat industry to change jobs.

President Yoon, who once said eating dogs was a matter of personal choice, later changed his position and pledged to work to ban dog meat consumption during his election campaigning.

While societal attitudes towards animals are shifting in modern Korea and with a high proportion of the population keeping dogs as domestic pets, the country's infamous dog farms and dog meat restaurants are still operating.
It's just your run of the mill liberal elite trying to be self righteous at others expense the like of Greta thunberg who fly private jets everywhere that emit enough co2 in an hour a family sedan does in a month to lecture how you using plastic straws is the cause of climate change
 

pmc

Colonel
Registered Member
Who are they to say. Is USA part of Arab League? What gave them the authority!
Arab league is like UN of Arabs. not particularly effective but it is some thing they use to engage West by over emphasizing its importance to deflect attention from real things. in recent meeting only thing agreed was Arab leadership role in Syria.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Overbom

Brigadier
Registered Member
There must be some mistranslation or missing context going on? Ex-Soviet Union countries would also include Russia
I don't think he would mean Russia. What I noted instead is that the way he said this, it would also include Central Asia.

If he specifically said about the Eastern Europe ex-Soviet Union states (esp. Lithuania) I would 100% cheer on him lol

Latvia FM complaining now. Wants explanation and complete retraction of statement by China
 

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
I think you missed my other reply to you #69,273 which has answered all your questions.

Then please explain the meaning of those 3 web pages.
Those three pages mean that they (Ericsson, Nokia and Samsung) have their Office suite. But they don't have their Windows platform. US companies have. For the cloud RAN to work, the operator has to have both. In a cloud RAN, the telecom vendors are providing SW applications to be run on a virtual machine (linux) in a cloud data center.

See the office and windows analog in #69,273,

If this is just about them being operated out of US data centers, my point still stands that I highly doubt the EU/France/South Korea/Japan etc. will voluntarily let their own national networks be operated out of data centers in the geographical US. And it goes without saying that any US network would be operated out of the geographical US. So what is even your point about how much this advances US interests? Sounds like empty political theatrics. The US will try to find or create back doors into anything and everything anyways, so the only independence comes from using as much Huawei as possible. Preferably all Huawei and nothing but Huawei. Anything and everything else is just a US puppet network.
No, it is not about where the data center is located, it is about who produce them therefor making profit out of them.

Most of profit of mobile network comes from base station sells. In traditional network 4G and 5G, these are made by the vendors, HW and SW. US makes no profit except supplying components. In a future cloud RAN, 3/4 SW stack and more than half of HW stack of base station is moved to cloud infrastructure, together with their profit. In a market where Chinese vendors are banned, US company will take a huge chunk of profit from Ericsson, Nokia and Samsung, that is the drive for US to push for cloud RAN.

Historical example, before internet and streaming, Sony makes profit from selling CD player, Apple has no business in music. Since the time of MP3 player, Sony is pushed out, while Apple win. The platform changing moves the profit.
 

pmc

Colonel
Registered Member
There must be some mistranslation or missing context going on? Ex-Soviet Union countries would also include Russia
He is sitting in France so i presume he has some idea of Arab world. it Arab world wealth and ideology that made thing happen in prior cold war. i even think this Sudan crises created potentially with some wealthy arab countries support. Arabs are perfectly capable of self destruction there own properties like those Airplanes in Sudan to achieve larger objective. . even flying to Latin America need Arab airspace. that 5 day visit of Lavrov to Latin America went through Arab airspace. MBS put a phone call which is not normal for this day
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
who will have thought this can happen when everything agreed regarding France. or that cartoon of Macron find through Arab media.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

CMP

Senior Member
Registered Member
I think you missed my other reply to you #69,273 which has answered all your questions.


Those three pages mean that they (Ericsson, Nokia and Samsung) have their Office suite. But they don't have their Windows platform. US companies have. For the cloud RAN to work, the operator has to have both. In a cloud RAN, the telecom vendors are providing SW applications to be run on a virtual machine (linux) in a cloud data center.

See the office and windows analog in #69,273,


No, it is not about where the data center is located, it is about who produce them therefor making profit out of them.

Most of profit of mobile network comes from base station sells. In traditional network 4G and 5G, these are made by the vendors, HW and SW. US makes no profit except supplying components. In a future cloud RAN, 3/4 SW stack and more than half of HW stack of base station is moved to cloud infrastructure, together with their profit. In a market where Chinese vendors are banned, US company will take a huge chunk of profit from Ericsson, Nokia and Samsung, that is the drive for US to push for cloud RAN.

Historical example, before internet and streaming, Sony makes profit from selling CD player, Apple has no business in music. Since the time of MP3 player, Sony is pushed out, while Apple win. The platform changing moves the profit.
So what does that mean for Huawei? Can they still maintain their marginal edge/global leadership moving forward? How much will Huawei's future growth in this area require diplomatic support from the CPC to encourage allies and partners (outside of the US vassalsphere) to use Huawei instead of Ericsson/Samsung/Nokia/Cisco? Likewise on the data center/SW stack side. It's good that Huawei is heavily in this space, but can they grow their market share outside of China? If Samsung/Ericsson/Nokia are going to lose a serious chunk of their profits to AWS and other US companies, is this a good thing on balance for Huawei? Neutral? Disadvantageous? Wouldn't Ericsson/Samsung/Nokia losing their profits help Huawei in the sense that its direct competitors have less to spend on R&D in this area? I guess at this point it's almost like I'm asking you to read the tea leaves on the future of Huawei, Chinese 6G, etc. vis a vis their competitors in the West+vassalsphere.
 
Top