The argument for eating dog

[Potoooooooo]

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/23/opinion/sutter-dog-meat-ethics/index.html
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
CNN's photo blog features an essay on the illegal dog-meat trade in Southeast Asia
John Sutter: The graphic details of the photos, and the trade, are shocking and sad
But, he writes, the fact that people eat dog should not seem repugnant
He says it's the equivalent of eating pig, which is another intelligent creature

 

[Metaphor]

Couldn't agree more.

I suspect though, that even if meating dog meat did not have general Western disapproval, that pig meat would still be more popular because it is probably nicer overall, because it would have a better meat to fat ratio, and dog meat is likely to be 'gamey'.

 

[laughing dog]

Except pigs are not generally kept as companions.

 

[NobleSavage]

I thought eating dogs was legal in China? The french eat horse as a delicacy.

 

[Bronzeage]

I thought eating dogs was legal in China? The french eat horse as a delicacy.

It is probably legal in most places in the US, with the same sanitary requirements and proper labeling on the packed meat.

In France, horse meat is commonly sold. About a year ago, there was a meat label scandal in Europe, where horse meat ended up in packages labeled ground. The reaction from some people was the same as if they had been caught making soylent green from people.

Imagine how long a store could stay open if there were fresh poodle or collie in the cooler.

 

[barbos]

Dogs are carnivores and are not being preyed upon in nature.
Normal meat like pigs cows and chicken eat plants and preyed upon in nature, that's why I think it's OK to eat them.
They coevolved to be eaten.

 

[Under the Rose]

It is not for me to judge what other people choose to eat and in some countries dogs can be a nuisance and a public hazard. It certainly would be desirable that any dogs which are destined to be eaten are at least handled in a humane manner. The 'civilized nations' cannot point fingers when one looks at our factory farming of animals and the poor conditions that many of those are forced to endure, as is pointed out in the article.

The following paragraph from the article raises a good point. How do we decide which animals are 'food' and which become exempt from that status?

Plus, there's an inherent danger in thinking that "the value of an animal depends on how you treat it," writes Slate's William Saletan.
"If you befriend it, it's a friend. If you raise it for food, it's food," he says in a 2002 essay, hilariously titled "Wok the Dog." "This relativism is more dangerous than the absolutism of vegetarians or even of thoughtful carnivores. You can abstain from meat because you believe that the mental capacity of animals is too close to that of humans. You can eat meat because you believe that it isn't. Either way, you're using a fixed standard. But if you refuse to eat only the meat of 'companion' animals -- chewing bacon, for example, while telling Koreans that they can't stew Dalmatians -- you're saying that the morality of killing depends on habit or even whim."

 

[Potoooooooo]

Dogs are carnivores and are not being preyed upon in nature.

don't be too sure about that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QE8aOc28kYc

 

[dystopian]

I thought eating dogs was legal in China? The french eat horse as a delicacy.

And we Dutch eat horse as just regular stuff. We put horsemeat on our bread. Actually, I´ve never heard of the French considering it as specifically a delicacy either, I doubt they consider it any different than we do.

I´d like to try dog sometime, assuming it´s not from some unhygienic street vendor anyway.

 

[The Paul]

Dogs are carnivores and are not being preyed upon in nature.
Normal meat like pigs cows and chicken eat plants and preyed upon in nature, that's why I think it's OK to eat them.
They coevolved to be eaten.

Now you're just doing that thing where people turn evolution into a god and use it as a justification and reinforcement for their beliefs/practices.

Evolution is like a volcano or a storm. It's impressive, sure, but there's no point in anthropomorphising it. It can not be appeased and it does not grant boons. It does not have dictates or desires or purpose. It does not want anything and it offers no direction or meaning.

It just can't say something like "Don't eat dogs."

That's just you projecting your biased ideas about what's "natural" onto something else to give them a little more weight.

 

[The Paul]

Not sure how this ended up in the wrong thread...

 

[bleubird]

I asked one of my Filipino friends about eating dogs.He said it was a mountain people thing.They kept dogs in pens and only feed them rice for weeks before they were butchered.

 

[Potoooooooo]

I asked one of my Filipino friends about eating dogs.He said it was a mountain people thing.They kept dogs in pens and only feed them rice for weeks before they were butchered.

In my grandmother's day in the Southern USA people did the same with raccoons and opossums, although they fed them biscuits instead of rice

 

[barbos]

Dogs are carnivores and are not being preyed upon in nature.
Normal meat like pigs cows and chicken eat plants and preyed upon in nature, that's why I think it's OK to eat them.
They coevolved to be eaten.

Now you're just doing that thing where people turn evolution into a god and use it as a justification and reinforcement for their beliefs/practices.

Evolution is like a volcano or a storm. It's impressive, sure, but there's no point in anthropomorphising it. It can not be appeased and it does not grant boons. It does not have dictates or desires or purpose. It does not want anything and it offers no direction or meaning.

It just can't say something like "Don't eat dogs."

That's just you projecting your biased ideas about what's "natural" onto something else to give them a little more weight.

Food chain exists.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A dog is an animal. Certainly not an endangered species. As long as they aren't treated poorly and abused like factory farmed meat, what is the issue?

 

[The Paul]

Now you're just doing that thing where people turn evolution into a god and use it as a justification and reinforcement for their beliefs/practices.

Evolution is like a volcano or a storm. It's impressive, sure, but there's no point in anthropomorphising it. It can not be appeased and it does not grant boons. It does not have dictates or desires or purpose. It does not want anything and it offers no direction or meaning.

It just can't say something like "Don't eat dogs."

That's just you projecting your biased ideas about what's "natural" some onto something else to give them a little more weight.

Food chain exists.

...indeed it does. And if you think it has some kind of underlying purpose that we need to adhere to you're engaged in some kind of vague nature worship.

 

[Potoooooooo]

Now you're just doing that thing where people turn evolution into a god and use it as a justification and reinforcement for their beliefs/practices.

Evolution is like a volcano or a storm. It's impressive, sure, but there's no point in anthropomorphising it. It can not be appeased and it does not grant boons. It does not have dictates or desires or purpose. It does not want anything and it offers no direction or meaning.

It just can't say something like "Don't eat dogs."

That's just you projecting your biased ideas about what's "natural" onto something else to give them a little more weight.

Food chain exists.

Indeed, and dogs are not always at the top

 

[Bronzeage]

Now you're just doing that thing where people turn evolution into a god and use it as a justification and reinforcement for their beliefs/practices.

Evolution is like a volcano or a storm. It's impressive, sure, but there's no point in anthropomorphising it. It can not be appeased and it does not grant boons. It does not have dictates or desires or purpose. It does not want anything and it offers no direction or meaning.

It just can't say something like "Don't eat dogs."

That's just you projecting your biased ideas about what's "natural" onto something else to give them a little more weight.

Food chain exists.

Yes, the food chain exists. In a truly natural state, dogs would be predators and we would be their prey. If you don't buy this, just remember the dingoes ate her baby. The strange thing about dogs is, they are the only animal to put themselves in parallel with us on the food chain.Dogs hunt in cooperative groups and humans hunt in cooperative groups. Sometime in the very distant past, we stopped competing and started cooperating with each other. This makes dogs our partners, and fives them a quasi-human status. It's not surprising some people see the slaughter and consumption of dogs as a form of cannibalism.

It's the cats who get the really good deal out of this. Dogs made man a better hunter and improved his standard of living. Cats, on the other hand waited until we settled down and accumulated enough stuff to attract rats and mice. Here we are, thousands of generations later and we still have dogs and cats as companions. The dogs still perform their ancient jobs, or at least they think they do. The den guarding instinct of most modern dogs has been bred out of them and left then in a state of perpetual puppyhood. Cats haven't changed much in the preceding years. They are the opportunists who hang around as long as things are good.

That being said, in my past, the cat stayed when the woman left, so they can't be all bad.

 

[none]

so what? hot dogs made of dogs, the inhumanity...

 

[NobleSavage]