Cutting and eating an octopus alive isn't cruel?

I just read this article http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4719. I'm not complaining that the writer cares enough to write about animal cruelty in China but I think the title of the article is misleading.

Although the article didn't directly say that eating cats and dogs are cruel and should be stopped, I somehow get the feeling that that's the main sentiment or message the writer is sending to the readers. Why else the writer used the title 'China's Animal Torture' but only focusing on cats and dogs and failed to mention any other animals the Chinese like to eat and torture like monkeys, tigers, rhinoceros, owls, snakes and hawks in its content? Is it because the other animals are not cute enough for the writer to care about?

The writer also seem to bring up countries that allow or no longer allow its people to eat cats and dogs only. Again, if the focus is truly on 'animal torture' which consists of more animals than just cats and dogs, shouldn't the writer brings up country like Japan too where its people tend to eat its food alive? I've saw a documentary where a Japanese actually cut one of octopus's limbs while the octopus is still alive and he eat that limb raw O_o There's also another documentary where the Japanese or Chinese (I don't remember which one) eat whole squid alive x_x

Had the writer write about chickens, cows, goats or any animals usually eaten by the Western being tortured, the writer wouldn't highlight so much about how it was sold openly, where it's available, or use special term close to their hearts like 'man best friend' or something like that. The focus would be on the cruel treatment only which is frankly what China, Japanese and Korea need to stop doing right now and forever.

So like I said, I'm not complaining. It's good that the writer is not a heartless person but I think the title used for the article is quite misleading. I would prefer it if the writer change the title of the article or completely rewritten the content so it suits the title.

By the way, I disagree with the writer's sentiment that it's wrong for people to eat dogs and cats. Of course I wouldn't eat dogs and cats myself, but the thoughts of whether you should or should not eat something usually depends on one's culture or religion. So is it not wrong for the writer to force people of different culture to accept his view that it's wrong to eat dogs and cats?

I mean, the Muslims don't eat pigs. The Hindus don't eat cows. Certain Buddhist or Hindus are completely vegetarians. And then there's the snails of the French culture which I think most people all over the world are totally afraid or gross out to ever eat. Oh, and have the writer ever heard of 'Balut'? It's a half-formed chick (or was it duckling? I don't remember) still in egg cooked and eaten by people of the Philippines. It's quite scary as a food which is why I doubt anyone who are not Philippines will ever dare to try.

So what if these people ever force their views on other people? Wouldn't the writer think it's wrong too?  What I'm trying to say is animal torture is an issue but what people should or shouldn't eat is a different issue but it seems like the writer has got this mixed up too.