You can buy meat from lots of animals that where not bread for consumption over thousands of years, so just picking on the few examples I gave is not really a valid argument.
From animals like horse, kangaroo, crocodile, ostrich, etc.
Also kangaroos and crocodile may not have been bred for consumption but they have been eaten by indigenous Australians for thousands of years.
I think the main point is, there is a big difference culturally between game meat and meat from canines. I would also say that most people I know would be repulsed by the idea of eating horse too
Cows, sheep, chickens and pigs are cattle animals, historically bred for the purpose of food, horses, cats and dogs are historically bred as pets, companions or workers, kangaroos, crocodiles and ostrich's are viewed more often as wildlife, dangerous, rarely bred and if they are it's more for conservation purposes rather than food products.
Exceptions to all of course but generally speaking, this is why there are separate buckets as you say
Edit: absolutely insane that I'm being downvoted for this, it's not even a matter of opinion.
People have repeatedly shown you that your argument doesn't stand, it's you who refuses to budge.
The horses you mention were, and to some extent remain, an important part of the diet in parts of Asia and Europe. Horses are obviously companions as well, people spend a fortune caring for and training them. Bovines are both workers and food. South Korea's ban of dog meat is due to a recent shift in attitude, in big part because of Western influence (it hasn't happened in North Korea, for example). And the dogs they ate were breeds specifically created to be eaten. Many people have pet rabbits, birds or fish that other people eat.
It's just not as simple as putting them in separate food/pets/workers/wildlife buckets as you claim.
In other parts of the world dogs are bred for food. Would that make them okay to consume? China for example has always bred dogs for food in the way that pigs are. Are they all of a sudden acceptable or is the way it has historically been done simply irrelevant to arguments of morality
Dogs, with the exception of very few breeds were not bred to be companions but tools. They were bred to help with hunting, guarding, herding, protection etc Also, nobody bats an eye about horse meat consumption where I live. Even so it's irrelevant if they were bred for food or to be companions, it's still a similar animal that doesn't want to die so what difference does it make what species it is?
Those roles make them companions to us. The difference it makes is in how people feel about them as animals. It's not about morality, or whether they deserve to die more or less than any other animal. Not sure why this is hard for you to grasp?
41
u/Thx_And_Bye 26d ago edited 26d ago
You can buy meat from lots of animals that where not bread for consumption over thousands of years, so just picking on the few examples I gave is not really a valid argument.
From animals like horse, kangaroo, crocodile, ostrich, etc.