This blog is no longer active since 27th October 2016, the new address is https://medium.com/@dtaside

#6 IoT: Empowering or Enslaving?

At 11:10 UTC on 21st October 2016, half of the Internet went down due to a large Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) on a major Domain Name Systems (DNS) host, Dyn. According to Flashpoint, the culprits utilised the same method used in another DDoS attack earlier this year on KrebsOnSecurity, making use of the increasing integrated network between devices, naming the Internet of Things (IoT). I'm no IT expert and I have no intention to explain the terms which I myself had to read up on, but you would not need to really understand them for the content of this post. The definition of IoT though, is important. It basically means objects and devices connected to the Internet can collect data from and exchange data with one another. The issue I want to discuss today is human's dependence on the Internet and the risks we are taking everyday by over-relying on the invisible network, which is materialised in the form of IoT.

Imagining a world without Internet is not easy when almost every aspect of our life is enabled and empowered by it. Internet itself is part of the technological advancement mankind has been continuously striving for in order to achieve higher standards of living, but while it is complementing and enhancing all the other technologies and improvements, it is also controlling them. Physical maps have long become obsolete in the appearance of digital maps and the Global Positioning System (GPS). The same story is true for paper letters and emails, CD/DVD and streaming services, SMS and messaging apps, the list goes on. The Internet has brought a new level of efficiency and convenience that all developers and inventors need to keep in mind while coming up with their next innovation. More businesses are holding virtual conferences, more hospitals are equipping IoT devices for better management, more police and intelligence forces require updated databases for their duties. The Internet is essential in all procedures from personal to local to national and international levels. Knowing this the disappearance of the Internet would cause astronomical damages, just like being hit by a meteor.

IoT devices are often referred to as 'smart' objects because they tell us things we don't know at a much faster rate than if we are to find out ourselves. Languages can't even evolve fast enough to cope with this influx of 'smart' everything, as 'smartphone' and 'smartwatch' are recognised as words but 'smartbrand' isn't, yet. In the near future chairs, spoons, washing machines and anything that can be connected will be connected to the giant grid of IoT and suddenly gain intelligence and start making commands. Censors in your IoT toothbrush will report any dental problem then send the information to your computer to book an check-up appointment when you are still washing your mouth. If being watched by CCTV is not anxious enough, your face-mask will soon be able to send analysis of your cough and in minutes you will be on your way to isolation. Convenience and privacy have always had a rocky relationship, and the rampant growth of IoT quickly elevates the former at the expense of the latter.

The downside of having everything attached to our bodies and in our possession connected to the Internet only presents itself, when other parties with technological capability and some ulterior motives carry out socially and legally undesirable activities causing inconveniences and disturbances. Cyber crimes are carried out by people who understand the fragility of our society and make use of the fact that communities and their members no longer function properly without being interconnected. The motive can vary from personal benefits to vigilante acts or just pranks to showcase ones' hacking prowess. People do whatever they want anyway. We should not even waste time worrying if imminent attacks are coming. They definitely are, despite IT companies and experts' constant effort in upgrading security protocols and measures. Are we all doomed then, if there is a possibility that one day the infrastructures and systems supporting our daily routines are paralysed and we are at the complete mercy of some geeks wearing hoodies? Not certainly, if we start to factor that possibility in every action we take and adopt a mindset of coexisting with the Internet, not leaving every aspect of our life to it.

Some might argue it is impossible for mankind to backtrack to previous states of development prior to the inventions of key technologies like the Internet, electricity, steam engines, and survive. Some others would play down habitual and contextual factors and simply base on the fact that our predecessors did survive without most of the cool modern ideas, so even if the Internet disappear tomorrow we would not follow dinosaurs' footsteps too quickly. Taking a side would require endless discussion and convincing which ultimately would most likely not result in any agreement, precisely why I tend not to do so, not anymore at least. The relevant question is not whether we can survive without the Internet, but how we do so.

As a heavy user of the Internet and IoT devices, I would not wish for more and more detrimental cyber attacks to occur, this blog will just vanish you see. However, I believe we all need to prepare the necessary mentality in case such a situation happens. We need to manage our Internet usage and sought out alternatives for the functions we use it for, effectively reducing our reliance on having stable and secure Internet connections for our devices and systems all the time. Such a mindset would also reduce the frequency and magnitude of attacks, as the harm-doers would have less to gain. Most things people do are to create an impact or trigger a reaction, and a less than dramatic response to the collapse of Google or other seemingly indispensable Internet providers would deplete the motivation to cause such a scenario in the first place. Uncle Ben taught us that great powers must be managed with great responsibility, and IoT must be managed through all of our effort, for no single individual or group can handle it alone.  

#5 Harambe and The Viral Generation

Before the invention of the Internet in 1950s, the word 'viral' would only cause paranoia and sweaty palms, not excitement and an urgent need to search for some bizarre music videos or articles about a gorilla being taken down. It has been well established that viral contents like the PPAP song or Harambe's death have several common characteristics: evoking extreme emotions, easy to comprehend, and relatable to the mass. Sharing viral contents is not so much about spreading breaking news and information, it instead enables and empowers the sharers to express an opinion or feeling that effectively paints themselves in the intended light. Calling it a self-gratifying act is not accurate, because most sharers do not actually care what others think of them, but that attitude defines their identities and makes them "unique" and "interesting". It can be a conscious or unconscious effort, but undoubtedly sharing viral materials is an activity most if not all that have access to Internet and social media profiles engage in on a daily basis, and we shall attempt to find out why.

In today's context, if a tree falls in the forest and no one is around, it certainly does not make a sound. It does not even fall, nor is it really a tree, on top of that the forest does not even exist in the first place. At any point of time, from any individual's point of view, something only exists or starts to exist if they know about it. However, after Italian astrologer Giordano Bruno was burned for spreading information contradicting to the Roman Catholic Church's belief, being told is no longer enough and people start to demand proofs to believe. Theories backed by experiments, photo and video evidences, i.e science, become more widely adopted and developed. Now, while viral contents are not necessarily scientific knowledge, they do have to be credible and objective to attract more shares and likes. There are viral materials being circulated with the purpose of humiliating certain groups and ideologies, but those are blatantly biased and sometimes ridiculous one can quickly realise their sarcastic feature. People only share contents that they want to be seen sharing anyway.

'Welcome to the Internet' can often be used to resolve, or make light of conflicts online, where everyone and anyone is free to say whatever they want. Most people, however, do not take into account others' opinions while formulating their own and end up sounding ignorant and ill-informed. The responses to Harambe's killing prompted me to start this blog on providing objective perspective on social issues, and I will discuss that in explaining the viral generation's mindset. 

                                                   (this is not Harambe but another lowland western gorilla, for illustration purpose)

To recap, the famous 17-year-old gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo and Botanical Garden was shot and killed by a zoo worker, after a 3-year-old boy got inside Harambe's enclosed captive area and was grabbed and dragged around by the 200 kg primate. Immediately the controversy began and the Internet was divided into two halves, one defending the zoo's choice of action and the other criticising the shooting as imprudent. Of course no single answer is perfect, but with a bit of logic and common sense you should be able to see that the boy's safety was of highest priority and the zoo's decision was appropriate. Yet, that very action was and is still being ridiculed by memes and people who nonchalantly distribute those memes online. 

This movement may have started with genuine grief (but highly unlikely) over Harambe's death, but it has reached the point when every mention of the word Harambe serves to entertain, draw attention and prove one's capability of making satirical remarks. Cincinnati Zoo has been pleading the public to stop the proliferation of such harmful memes, but a quick glimpse at the comments and you can safely tell this ignorant and damaging act will continue for long. Had the incident not been reported, none of this proud "Harambe supporters" would have displayed so much concern towards animals. Since they questioned the shooting which ultimately prevented any potential harm done to a human baby, a fellow member of their species, you could already tell if the concern was real or not. The viral environment is the natural habitat for hypocrites, after all it is not too difficult to shed virtual tears for an animal you would never meet.

Members of the viral generation are created by the systematic problem with today's standards of 'just for fun'. You might have already heard the saying that people are getting more sensitive nowadays and they can get offended by anything, but that has got to do with how comments are made and opinions are expressed with little or no regards to others' feeling or ideologies. Words are free, but it doesn't mean they must and should be cheap. Do think before you share your opinion on any matter, be ready to back it up with logical arguments supported by evidences, and consider others' perspectives with respect. The online community is not yet beyond hope, and we can stop the viral culture infecting our statements with insensitive and uneducated remarks before it becomes a real disease.

   

#4 The Truth about False Accusations

In 2013, Sichuan, China, 3 young boys rushed to the rescue of an elder woman, Mrs. Jiang, who fell down and was asking for help. No one, besides Mrs. Jiang herself, expected the old woman to start yelling about how the trio pushed her down in the first place. She was then sent to the hospital while demanding 200,000 yuan (31,200 USD) compensation from the boys' families for her self-diagnosed broken bones. Unfortunately for her, local policemen and doctors performed their responsibilities flawlessly, confirming that she fell down on her own and had no injuries, though many might hope she really broke her ankles and could not go outside scamming again.

The fact that there exists people who actually make up ploys to use their real or artificial miseries to extort something from others is fascinating. In 2009, a male student from University of Edinburgh was falsely accused of rape by his ex-girlfriend who initiated sex with him on his birthday, then cried that he raped her the next morning, most probably for revenge, or for the heck of it. He was under house arrest and had to attend hearings and pre-trials for two and a half years, only for the case to be dismissed almost instantly during the real trial in February 2012. During that period his friends stopped talking to him, he changed to a new school where his new friends soon found out about the case and stopped talking to him. Once he was declared innocent he called up University of Edinburgh, which practically threw him out for who they thought the "victim" made him to be, and all they said was 'fine'. Not a line about how sorry they were for the ways they handled his case and tarnished his reputation and future, because they were not.

In a false accusation case, the '"victims" are the real offenders and the alleged "culprits" are the real victims, but society just can't be bothered by the truth. Even when a person's status is cleared, it does not matter anymore since the damage is already done. The only news we usually see are the ones reporting incidents that happened or are believed to have happened, but it stops there.  No follow-ups on the investigations, on the evidences and confessions later made and on the actual ruling of the case, because those are boring and would not sell as much. So what if the alleged rapist turned out to be innocent, who cares? It's more important that you can tell your friends 'hey do you know about that rape case, the guy is a sicko, I've lost faith in people' and become applauded for showing sympathy towards the human race. If you know the "victim", better still, simply showering the person with concerns and humiliating remarks for the "culprit" to fulfil your social responsibilities. After sufficient time, even the "victims" would no longer care, leaving only the falsely accused frantically battling to prove their innocence.

False accusation is itself a crime of fraud, but in most cases it's one party's words against the other's, so coming up with a guideline to deal with this phenomenon can be tricky. With a functional brain and enough wicked intelligence, you can frame anyone of anything and people would not blink twice before condemning the person to the deepest levels of hell. Humans enjoy knowing about others' wrongdoings. We might celebrate fire-fighters and those who do good deeds to society as heroes without capes, but we shiver with excitement upon hearing stories about villains, the dysfunctional part of the world that makes us feel better about ourselves. We often describe criminals 'the lowest of the low' not just because their actions cause undesirable consequences, but they effectively serve as standing platforms to elevate the rest of society as greater, more morally correct human beings. Since we actively seek evils to glorify our self-worth, the falsely accused always face unfavourable treatment which is irreversible, while the false accusers freely surf the sympathy waves.  

Lying alone is not wrong, but lying with the intention to make someone miserable should be made punishable. However, stories are only known as they are told, and the media industry thrives on publishing whatever that boosts their profits, and fabricated lies top the best-seller list. People love to make judgements with little or no support, and a simple statement or headline can completely erase a person's future. If you ever contemplate falsely accusing someone, just bear in mind the ending of The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The shepherd boy was eaten by the wolves when the villagers no longer believed his lies. Karma is a bitch if you are one, hopefully.

  

#3 Gunning for Control: US vs the World

On June 12, 2016, America was struck by the second most deadly attack of the 21st century yet, after September 11, 2001. Omar Mateen, an  Afghan American who worked as a security guard opened fire at a gay nightclub in Orlando, ending 50 lives including his own. The horrendous incident was described by many labels, from a terrorist attack due to Mateen's self-proclaimed link with ISIS to a hate crime on the LGBT and the Hispanic community, but getting a clear answer for this question would not prevent similar tragedies from happening in the future. America is not the only country in the world filled with hatred between races and prejudices between groups and ethnic groups, but it is where most people actually have to die due to these differences. And that is because in this land of freedom everyone is entitled to possess firearms and there are just too many freaking guns lying around in safes, bedroom drawers and even in the hands of toddlers.

Shocking and dreadful, but the Orlando shooting was only 1 in 43 shootings all across the US on June 12, 2016. In fact it was business as usual that Sunday, as gun violence and gun-related incidents result in 36 deaths and 76 injuries everyday in America, much higher than any other cause such as traffic accidents, natural disasters or even wars. It is also higher than any other country, and in all of them there exists a high correlation between number of firearm possessions and number of fatal casualties from guns, which is not really a surprise. Omar Mateen legally bought the weapons he eventually used to unleash his raging tantrum on the 49 unfortunate victims from a gun shop 2 weeks beforehand, a reality that seemed more like a scene from a modern horror movie. Likewise, Kevin James Loibl got hold of the guns he used to assassinate late popular singer Christina Grimmie legally and without notice from any of his family members or acquaintances. Individuals like Mateen and Loibl are not all that rare, but only in America should they be able to obtain specialised weapons to commit crimes of such magnitude. America doesn't necessarily have more criminals or more crimes than any other place, but its criminals are much better equipped and its crimes are thus much more lethal. 

America's unfathomable firearm under-regulation benefits not only criminals, but also people with suicidal tendencies, in the sense that they can get the job done with ease. Such individuals most of the time suffer from mental instability and once they fail to commit suicide once it is unlikely they would engage in that same activity, or at least they wouldn't be able to since attempting to kill yourself is actually illegal in most states (but buying guns isn't!). A suicide is only counted if well, the person is dead, so inefficient methods which either take too much effort or sound too painful "save" many lives, as most of those in that state of mind could not determine if they have cut the right arteries or swallowed enough sleeping pills to depart from this cold insensitive and heartless world. But a gun is efficient, maybe a little too efficient. The rate of suicides by guns in the US has increased by 150% over the past decade, pushing overall suicide rate to reach a 30-year high. If there is ever a "committing suicide for dummies" guidebook, which by the way would not be very credible since the author obviously hasn't succeeded doing what he is selling, guns must definitely top the list of most recommended cheat codes to rage-quitting the game of life.

If possessing guns effortlessly poses such a serious threat to society then why the hell have generations of American presidents failed to implement stricter gun control and regulation? First of all, the US president does not have paramount power over enacting legislative changes and that laws have to be approved by Congress before they can be in effect. And when everything the country does or contemplates doing is decided by a group of 535 people, consisting 100 senators and 435 representatives, their opinions are priced and their votes are earned by those who wish for certain outcomes. Lobbyists such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) spend fortunes to ensure pro-gun politicians get to sit on the right seats and stricter gun laws and regulations would never pass. 

Furthermore, the Second Amendment of the US Constitution actually makes banning gun ownership illegal as it is a fundamental right, as fundamental and important as voting and interstate travelling. This is often a hotly contested point during Congress meetings, and gun rights activists believe that the country would be much safer if every citizen has an effective mean to defend themselves against insane individuals like Omar Mateen. Proponents of the alteration or elimination of the right to bear arms feel that there is no need to even be scared of getting shot if no one can leisurely walk up to a shop and come out with a semi-automatic rifle to vent his anger on random bystanders. But then again, laws and orders never seemed to stop those who wish to inflict pain and suffering upon others.

In the immediate future banning guns and gun ownership would not reduce gun violence and mass shooting in the US, simply because it would be too little too late. There are as many guns in America as people since 2015, and on estimate 1 in every 3 households is in possession of at least one handgun, shotgun or rifle. That means if you live in the US and, hopefully, not the type who would feel safer sleeping with a pistol beneath the pillow, chances are one of your two direct neighbours would have more than two fists and a nasty personality to make you feel intimidated. However the pervasiveness of guns arguably tightens security around the neighbourhood since burglars and mobs do not enjoy finding themselves on the wrong side of the barrel, for the same reason they tend to carry out their activities in the absence of home owners or away from crowded areas. Announcing that most law-abiding citizens could only defend themselves with kitchen knives and frying pans now would potentially increase crime rate and defeat the purpose of the ban in the first place.  

However, if Americans ever wish to expand their life expectancy the US government has to work towards restricting gun ownership and eventually prohibiting firearm sales to normal citizens. Less guns means less shootings and less people being shot to death, it sounds simple because it is. More thorough background screening is only accurate until the point of purchase of the weapons, but from then on buyers have to be continuously monitored so that any change in their behaviour indicating a likelihood to utilise the deadly gears they got in anything but self-defence and crime-deterrence is observed and intercepted in time. Who am I kidding, of course that is impossible to achieve with the current technology and manpower. In addition, people change facing different circumstances and "good" citizens today could very well be demons in human skin tomorrow. No one is ever born evil and all criminals are handmade by society and the way it functions. There is no escaping gun violence as long as citizens, no matter good or bad, are still able to get their hands on those lethal weapons. 

Nevertheless, underground networks and black markets operate beyond the scope of the law, and criminals with sufficient funds and motives could always obtain what they need to make headlines the next day. We can never fully prevent firearms possession anywhere, and it will surely come to situations where innocent people are defenceless and totally at the gunman's mercy while awaiting authorised armed forces' assistance, but that is how it should be everywhere. Gun violence is and will always be a problem in the US. Restricting gun ownership might not reduce number of mass shooting incidents, but it would certainly decreases the probability of non-malicious gun-related cases such as suicidal attempts or accidental firings. The world is already unnatural as it is and America had been even more unorthodox by allowing guns to be purchased readily. America was different, and it's high time it acknowledges this difference as stubbornness and rigidity in legislation rather than freedom and protecting the basic rights of its citizens.

#2 Brexit and the Power of Voices

On 24th June 2016 the world woke up to possibly the most shocking news of the decade yet, as the United Kingdom was no longer part of the European Union. The date of the referendum was set way back in February, but most people would not have paid the term Brexit any heed then for it is human nature to only care and panic about a ticking time bomb after it had already levelled cities. Whether this bomb is going to trigger an avalanche of global financial meltdown or possibly wipe out the EU once and for all, it is uncertain and not the focus of my post. I am instead going to explore the tool that enabled this whole saga and led to a seemingly ridiculous move by the UK government, and that is the opinion of the people.

This incident was voted into reality. Voting is a core foundation upon which Democratic societies are built and the very right and privilege that ensures societies stay truly democratic. A 'government of the people, by the people, and for the people', as stressed by Abraham Lincoln in 1863, is one that bases decisions on the voice of its citizens, or more precisely the voice of the majority of its citizens. In an ideal world where everyone is perfectly capable of logical reasoning and has access to all sources of information available it is assumed that such a government would always be efficient since the people would all agree on the best course of action. Unfortunately even then information is processed differently by different groups and individuals, personal benefits are put ahead of collective gains and it is virtually impossible for everyone to share the same point of view. So exactly whose opinions should matter?

The fact that more than half of the UK citizens chose to leave was not the concern, but when many of those who believed the UK would be better off on their own exercised their voting right without even knowing what was the EU then we have an alarming situation. The leader of the UK Independence Party (UKIP) Nigel Farage furthere steered the result in his favour by offering a lucrative promise of channelling the 350 million pounds per week payment made to the EU towards the UK's National Health Service. Shortly after Leave camp surprisingly took an uncatchable lead he somehow disregarded what must be the best selling point of Leave campaign as "a mistake". Upon experiencing the biggest I-immediately-regretted-my-decision moment many blinded Leave voters signed a petition to push for a second referendum, but the damage was already done and German Chancellor Angela Merkel certainly would not entertain this possibility. Opinions voiced irresponsibly and without proper thoughts and considerations evidently could give birth to unimaginable and unprecedented outcomes.

Then again, whether staying in or leaving the EU would be more beneficial for the UK and the rest of the world is not a question to which a satisfactory answer could ever be finalised. Comparisons are always relative and subject to the prevailing standards and conditions, so maybe in 50 years time the idea that the UK was ever part of the EU would seem hilarious and nonsensical and Farage would be celebrated for making that decisive historic move to "free" the UK. Or maybe Brexit eventually never happened, who knows.

What we can and must learn from this comedy of a campaign is that when people are granted the power to vote, or the ability to impact policies with their opinions, the decision making process leading to their choices matters and has to be monitored in one way or another. Strictly regulating participants and their votes defeats the purpose of voting in the first place, but giving every Tom, Dick and Harry a pen to check a box of their preference while they have no clues and no conscious intention to find out what is printed on the voting slip would present the world with more cases like Brexit.

The effects of Brexit are debatable but how it became a reality should and must be studied in order to promote transparency and objectiveness in media and instil a sense of ownership to their nation in each and every voter in the UK and all over the world. Other countries contemplating to follow the UK's footsteps or Scotland hoping to remain in the EU by leaving the UK itself must be responsible to ensure their people carry out the voting duty informed and prepared. The UK government can simply ignore the result of the referendum, and not feel a whole lot guilty for it would be neither the first nor the last to do so, but that does not resolve the issues at hands and might even give rise to more chaotic political turmoil. The UK citizens have spoken, albeit dazed and misguided, and now they have to face the consequences no matter what lies ahead.

#1 Who Owns the Barking Rights?

Since 2009, the later part of June has become a festive duration for the people of Yulin, Guangxi, but it might not be a joyful occasion for man's best friends. In the 10-day period till the midyear point, over 10000 dogs are cooked with lychees and eaten by people coming to this southern region of China specifically to be able to experience something they cannot find elsewhere. While eating dog meat is not that rare a practice in Asian societies, with major ones including China, Korea and Vietnam, but holding a large-scale event exclusively for the promotion and distribution of a special method to prepare dogs for consumption purposes is something mind-puzzling.

It is believed that dog meat and lychees produce some warming effect in accordance to Chinese medicinal belief of substances having yin and yang properties, of which you can explore on your own here. But that is a minor and often neglected point compared to the huge uproar caused by animal rights activists and netizens in China and worldwide over the very fact that this Yulin festival has been occurring for years, and that it has to be stopped. But does it really?

Let me put it upfront bold and clear: there is naturally nothing wrong with eating dog meat, or any kind of meat at all. The reasons we associate different creatures and species with different functions are all made up, by none other than ourselves, or more correctly our ancestors, who were born into societies made up by their ancestors and so on. At some point along the evolutionary timeline, some members of the homo sapiens species must have looked around and asked the million stone dollar question: what can we eat? Probably anything that moved at the beginning, but after awhile bringing down mammoths with pebbles and pure enthusiasm driven by hunger might prove too daunting and exhausting a task, so they asked the next and more sensible question: what should we eat? This process of reasoning evolved constantly and eventually society reached a moment in which there was a classification of biological beings, with intelligence and without, to which a person can regard as food or not. Evidently this process has resulted in people from different parts and different groups of people from the same part of the world having drastic contrasting opinions on what would be on the dining table, and that is a problem.

There are many reasons some people eat and do not eat some kinds of meat. Religion, culture, tradition, habit, challenge, torture, self-torture, law and regulation, you get the idea. For certain kinds of meat it is not too difficult to come up with universally acceptable reasons for not eating them. Human meat is one of those, for it is murder which is a crime, cannibalism which makes it difficult to maintain healthy relationships with your neighbours, and there would not be any review of it so you would not know if it even tastes nice in the first place. Others are mostly endangered animals, since once they go extinct you cannot do anything with them let alone dissolving their bones with your stomach acid. And for species that have a long history of being domesticated by human such as cats and dogs, the reason is that they are cute and they are our friends. Seriously? Then chickens are agents from hell sent over to disrupt our sleep in the morning and deserve to be chopped into pieces and packed into $5 meal boxes in fast food restaurants?

There is only one thing that differentiates an animal between being fed to us and being fed by us, and it's choice. It is the choice we decide on that ultimately determines another living being's fate, and claiming one choice is wrong and immoral and illogical because it is not the same as ours is pretentious and hypocritical. As a dog and cat owner myself I swore that I would never touch dog and cat meat, but I do not hate people who enjoy those particular kinds of meat and I absolutely would not consider forcing my belief onto them, as long as they are not eating MY dogs and cats. Of course you would become affectionate to your pets and the very thought of them dying in a boiling water pot would be your worst nightmare, but what does it have to do with others?

Most dog meat businesses operate their own farms for supply, much like those for common livestock. They have no emotional connection to the animals they breed, grow and eventually slaughter for sales, so from their point of view there is no issue and they can pretty much sleep soundly at night. "But dogs are adorable and the way they are killed is too brutal". There is no such thing as a humane way to kill a living being for the sake of frying it with onions in sunflower oil. Muslim's classification of haram and halal meat supported by science can somewhat explain what kind of meat we should eat, but that is besides the point. Unless you have been a voluntary vegetarian your entire life, which is also not possible because whoever brought you up has affected your diet and thinking, you are in no position to say it's wrong for someone to eat dog meat, even though it is wrong if they try to eat YOUR dogs. The Yulin dog meat festival should not be banned and protested against, but it is the higher probability of dog theft that manifests as a by-product of higher demand during this period that should receive full attention from official bodies. I do not advocate the practice of eating dog meat, but I am against prohibiting it for the simple reason that it is bullshit.