Multi-Mighty: Dogs, Liberalism and Conservativeism

Due to the statements made by 2 Confederate candidates to the Sejm on the abolition of the legal ban on eating dogs (one of whom disappeared from the list even before its registration), I feel obliged to talk on this matter. This will proceed with my many statements on the social portal X (formerly TT) and for 1 of the YouTube channels. I consider the problem to be not applicable (here I agree with Mr Dobromir Sosnier that “there is no subject”), as from the point of view of the relation between the foundations of liberalism and conservatism.

Numerous liberal statements on this subject – including the lovingly reigning us in the “Highest Time!” edited by Dr. Thomas Sommer – are based on the presumption that a dog from a legal point of view is simply a thing, and all owner can do whatever he wants with his own thing, including the usage and abuse of things, as defined by Article 544 of the Napoleon Code. so ed. Sommer wrote on his X portal that Pimpus can be loved, but can besides be eaten. As an argument, it is cited that in many countries dogs are eaten, for example in China, and thus the ban on eating them is "only cultural" and does not come from the nature of things. So if possible Pympus eaters argue, individual bans anyone from eating a dog, that's why it limits their freedom. This would be an absolute value.

As a Conservative, I can't agree with that reasoning, and it's not just due to the fact that I'm looking at my Cross sitting next to me, and I'm shuddering at the thought that individual might kill her and cook her. I mean that liberal statement. I, that the legal ban on eating dogs is "cultural only". No. No. onlybut AY Cultural! The origin of law should mostly be customs and traditions, or cultural norms. erstwhile a given norm becomes common in a certain human community, and its breaking causes mischief, embarrassment, or outrage, it is simply a sign that the legislator should treat specified a norm as a conventional unwritten law, and erstwhile he sees that there is simply a group of people breaking it—to widespread outrage, he should add sanctions to the conventional standard. Thus, customized is transformed into a legal standard. The problem of our modern times is just the complete disengagement of the established law from moral norms, and at the end of this modern-day process is postmodernism, along with its laws "affirming" LGBT agenda, including the marriages of same-sex people and the statutory right to choose one's own sex. And a liberal who says that eating dogs for dinner is “only culture” should be consistent and say that not accepting homosexual relationships and choosing his sex is besides “only culture”. The most crucial thing is the egotistical and self-centered liberal Self, which all conventional norms and customs ignore, due to the fact that it is "only culture".

I would like to point out that if we consider that the ban on eating dogs is “only culture” due to the fact that the dog is simply a thing and belongs to the owner, who can do whatever he wants with it, we can besides approach human corpses. The fact that we are prohibited from eating the deceased grandma or grandpa is besides “only culture”. In the Amazon, it is said that to this day the dead are eaten, due to the fact that the culture there believes it is obvious. From a legal point of view, the body of the deceased is besides a thing, as he ceases to be a legal entity. So if the self-centered liberal Ja announces that the ban on eating relatives is ‘only culture’, then you should besides eat specified a ban and who wants to bury grandpa, and who wants to turn him into sausages, then you can besides have the right to. That is why I object to the word "culture only". This is AY culture. A civilized and cultural man is so different from a barbarian that any things he does not do and legally forbid certain things, but they are possible and in lower cultures Practiced.

The discrimination between higher and lower cultures leads us logically to China, which is given as an example of civilization, where dogs are eaten. Well, fewer people in Poland know that there is now a ban on eating dogs in China, introduced by law in 2020. For this reason, the Chinese Ministry of Agriculture has issued a peculiar communication, which should be read by all self-centered liberal I: “According to common global practice, following the advancement of civilization and with public concern for animal protection, dogs were listed as accompanying animals. In the world, they are not commonly considered part of the inventory and should not be included in this group in China“ ” (quoted for: open cages.pl/blog/transition-decision-Chinese-owner-prohibit-sell-dog-town). The Chinese authorities introduced this ban "following the advancement of civilization", thereby admitting that this multi-thousand-year practice in the mediate State denied what we consider to be the improvement of civilization. Of course, in practice – unfortunately – dogs are surely inactive eaten by Chinese, but this is no longer enjoyed by state sanctions. Thus, the "cesar" Xi Jinping considered that dogs were "animals accompanying" man, not part of his cowshed or barn. This is the same view that has developed in our Latin Civilization over the last centuries, where dog consumption is considered something disgusting.

For there to be no misunderstandings: defending the statutory ban on eating dogs I defend our culture and civilization. At the same time, I cut off from the left-wing fresh talk about “the boy”, “the boy” and “the girl” – this is any ideological quirk. The dog is “a companion animal” to a Western man, his friend, not a child. However, 1 should not take the view that since the “left” speaks of the dog, the “law” should fall into the second utmost and talk of the “eat of Pimpus”. Just due to the fact that “left” has made the dogs stupid and confused with children, does not mean that “right” must reject our culture and fall into barbarity!

Adam Wielomski