by 
yellowJZ
ANSWERS: 15
-
They make better friends than food. +4
-
Nothing. I don't see why people have a problem with that. Yeah it's not the best meat but it is meat. Eating a cat or dog is no different than eating a pig or a cow.
-
Dogs and cats are more regarded as pets than other animals like pigs and cows, especially since pigs, cows, chickens and other livestock are kept specifically for eating. Dogs and cats are kept for companionship. :)
-
Dogs and cats are house pets. You just don't eat your pets.
-
The meat is very tough compared to cow and pig meat.......
-
Not sure but I wouldn't try it unless it was one of those survival things...
-
nothing, I mean if it trips your trigger, than whatever. for example, I eat chipmunk, but not everyone else does.
-
it is socially unacceptable in America. It is an acceptable diet in other countries. There are also countries where eating horses are acceptable for consumption...again not in America.
-
nothing, their just part of the family to some people in america
-
Really nothing other than they have become domisticated to a level that people are more emotionally attached to them, whether they own them or not. So nothing is wrong in the moral sense, its still food. But social convention frowns on it.
-
It's obviously been tried and tested over the years. My guess would be that, we eat pigs cows chickens etc, because we found them to be the tastiest.. or easiest to farm And other animals, not just including dogs and cats, fell out of favour because they don't taste as good! Plus, Cats and dogs can deal considerably more damage to the farmer, than a chicken or a pig ever could...
-
Dogs have personality. Cats? I dunno. I just hate cats.
-
It's to do with the fact that they have more intelligence and more complex nervous systems (so greater fear and pain exposure), than most animals that are farmed for food. The exception is pigs who should be taken right off the menu for the same reason. A further issue is that, in cultures where dog and cat are on the menu, there are certain excrutiatingly inhumane ritual and / or 'traditional' aspects to the slaughter of these 'delicacies' that make their consumption even more appallingly reprehensible.
-
Nothing really if you think about it, other then the obvious human emotional attachments, and religious aspects. If you spill blood for nourishment then whats the difference of what blood is spilled. Some religious groups believe that their God provided only certain animals as food stock. but even still most people eat animals that were not grouped in that list anyway, such as the swine or the catfish and salmon. I equate this question to the people who are crying about the dolphins being caught in the tuna nets, yet nobody is crying for the tuna.
-
First put Peta nonsense out of your head. They have their heads up their butts. Looking rationally at the issue though, there is a good reason not to eat them, which is the same reason we don't eat eagles or owls; they are carnivores and too high up the food chain. Pesticides and other toxins accumulate more and more in an animal's body as they are higher and higher on the food chain; an eagle's body for instance contains the pesticides of every mouse it has eaten which in turn contains the pesticide of every bug it's eaten, which in turn contains the pesticide of every plant it's eaten. In certain societies including China, Korea, and Eskimo/Aleut, there is a tradition of eating dogs; the Eskimos kept the best dogs to pull the sleds and ate the weak ones. They can't understand why you would waste food and resources on a dog that doesn't pull its own weight, and frankly they have a point. Facing starvation, I think anyone should eat a dog rather than starve, but otherwise I'd pass simply because I don't consider it a healthy practice.
Hardcore Conservative RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC