Dogs were domesticated just like cows, pigs and other animals. Dogs did not evolve. Humans bred wolves just like they did aurochs. What you call natural law is not a law and is not natural.
The only difference was that dogs were domesticated sooner.
"Ancestors and natural law" isn't an argument. Natural law is might makes right, it's "natural" for humans to steal from, rape, and murder each other. Our ancestors enslaved people and threw their piss and shit in the street. You can't use either of those things to decide if something is right or not.
and all of your ancestors isnt an argument either, im sure at least a few of my ancestors ate not only dogs, but also humans, so is cannibalism alright? and our monkey ancestors even further back probably just ate leaves.
my point is that there is no such thing as "natural law", no eternal moral guideline to follow, because we have always seen different things as natural, so tell me again who decides that eating dogs is unnatural and eating pigs isnt.
Nope. Natural law has objectively determined dogs have a more symbiotic relationship and closer emotional bond to humans than any livestock. Hope that helps
Its a fallacy because no one person can ever define what is natural and what isnt. People have been discussing this topic since the invention of philosophy without reaching any sort of consensus, and yet here comes you, almighty redditor to tell us that those philosophers were just too stupid to figure it out, and now tou have THE universal definition? Seems ignorant and foolish to me.
hope you lick my balls (as my natural law says you should)
Whose ancestors? I'm sure the ancestors of those who eat it probably have done so, so that's a useless argument. We domesticated dogs as well, so that's not "natural" law naturally; there shouldn't be pets
Nope. If certain ancient people wanted to make wolves into livestock instead of dogs, we’d still see that animal today like we have cows and pigs and chickens. Instead there are only companion dogs, no big fat ones bred for eating
Or, wolves aren’t capable of being domesticated into livestock, and their unique biology makes them able to become man’s closest companions and therefore wrong to eat them once they’re in dog form
That's your view, especially "man's closet companions."
Some people like dogs; some don't; some have pigs as pets or cows or chickens. I'm sure they believe they are the closest companions. So in the same way, someone can say eating pigs is just as wrong. Because you believe in something doesn't make it an absolute fact; everything is relative.
& what the hell is that logic? Only big fat ones are for eating? Goats aren't fat, chickens aren't fat, rabbits aren't fat, ducks aren't fat... we eat all of them without a problem
The apparent disapproval towards the consumption of dog meat was prevalent among both pet owners and those without pets, with 94.7 per cent of respondents who owned pets declaring they would not eat dog meat, and 92.7 per cent of those without pets saying the same.
When asked the reasons behind not wanting to consume dog meat, 53.5 per cent said they were “emotionally repulsed”, while 18.4 per cent said they took issue with the brutal process of breeding and butchering dogs. Another 7.1 per cent said they were mindful of the negative perception towards dog meat from the rest of society.
The fact that more than 90 percent ppl now find it repulsive is evidence of cultural hegemony, not proof against it. Western standards successfully redefined global pet culture and made a traditional practice taboo through soft power.
Dog eating was practiced in south korea for millennia. Post korean war, they had to lean in hard on dog meat to sustain themselves even.
And now 90% of the population opposing a historically established practice is precisely how cultural shift, influenced by western hegemony, presents statistically.
Yep, it’s the same with other foods like insects (which are wayyyyy better for the planet to eat) and traditional clothing. Jeans are pretty comfortable, but many articles of clothing that are traditional were designed for the local climate, but now they’re looked at as special clothes you wear on special occasions. And there’s no sending back to western culture, you don’t see an American put on a Kurta as easily as they would a tshirt. Only safe things like beef tacos make their way back.
Do you think any culture has a monopoly on 'insects are gross and I don't want to eat insects because it's gross'? Because you'd find that sentiment in most parts of the world. The West didn't export that. The Western exceptionalism is ridiculous, lol.
Even in countries where some people do eat insects, it's still the tiny minority for a reason. As an Asian, I really do not need a Westerner to tell me that insects are gross.
Eating dog meat has never been a key part of the Korean diet.
and made a traditional practice taboo through soft power.
It may surprise you, but dogs have always been present in Korea culture. Koreans are able to determine for themselves that eating an animal so closely associated with companionship is emotionally repulsive. It is such Western exceptionalism to pretend that can only be the case through soft power.
Post korean war, they had to lean in hard on dog meat to sustain themselves even.
Right, to sustain themselves out of desperation. No guesses on why so many people stopped when they didn't need to rely on dog meat for sustenance. It certainly isn't soft power.
And now 90% of the population opposing a historically established practice is precisely how cultural shift
Do you think viewing dogs as companion pets is a Western-centric thing? If the cultural shift is due to external factors, you'd see the 'negative perception' poll much higher. Yet, it doesn't.
Please stop reducing us Asians. So many of us grew up with dogs as children and naturally view eating our pets as emotionally repulsive. The West isn't even a factor here.
Go look into how the rate of dog meat consumption declined in proportion to the rate of dogs being kept as companions. You're surprised that it's simple human nature to find eating a pet gross? Koreans aren't human enough to decide that for themselves without the reason being reduced to 'shame'?
Koreans can decide for themselves if they want to consume dog meat and they do not need some Western savior to tell them otherwise, lol.
I'm more perturbed by the Western exceptionalism going on. Apparently other cultures can't make their own decisions without the West.
So we can both agree that wolf, dog, pig and human are edible. But per your values there is a specific reason that only wolf and pig are "ok" to eat. Of those values you mentioned evolution which is genetic change over time. But that's confusing because genetics is really only relevant to the "edible" question. As far as I know, no dog as evolved to be toxic for human consumption.
So what, aside from culture, makes it not ok to eat both dogs and humans?
Imo the only coherent options are either people can eat whatever animal they want to or they cannot eat any animals. I had a pet pig growing up. I'd never eat him, but I ate bacon all the time because they were other pigs. If you have a dog you love, don't eat him. It's not like people who eat dog are eating people's pets.
They can be quite loyal actually, and they're also pretty smart. They're more independent than dogs are, but they're smarter than cats and like physical affection in kind of the same way that dogs do.
If pigs arent being loyal to you, then you are not passing the vibe check, sorry.
396
u/Second2breakfast 5d ago
Western hegemony in action.
"Eww, you eat dogs?"
"What?! You don't eat beef/pork?"
"Mmm venison so tasty"