They have a cultural inferiority complex , and they can’t stop simping for the west.
Why is Lamb allowed to be consumed and dogs not ? can’t both animals be taken as pets.
You can’t be owned more than South Korea is today.
Because feeling meat to livestock is wasteful. Also eating non vegetarians means consuming more heavy metals and other accumulating waste.
“Breeding animals for consumption is fine, except this one.”
It is slightly odd how people are like, “cows? Gimme that burger. Sheep? Mmm, mint sauce. Chicken? Batter that baby up”. But then suddenly everyone turns into a vegan when it’s a dog or a horse.
I’ve got no interest in eating dog meat, but where’s the consistency?
A main distinguishing factor is dogs eating meat.
We domesticated a highly emotionally intelligent animal. Who cares if there’s “consistency”, if they were killed to make it consistent it wouldn’t be better.
Pigs especially are highly emotionally intelligent.
It’s purely for a cheap optics win. President Yoon is a fascist incel that has been taking L after L, so he worked to ban dog meat despite almost nobody eating it except the absolute poorest of society. Dog meat isn’t a delicacy, it wasn’t something people ate because they saw it as high status, it was largely abandoned by an increasingly westernized South Korea, except for those who couldn’t afford anything else. Barely anyone was eating it.
Instead, it’s virtue signaling by a fascist looking to grab cheap publicity wins rather than actually making good systemic change. Dog meat wasn’t an especially pressing concern, it was an almost gone practice out of necessity, coming from food insecurity, especially during and after the Korean War.
TL;DR still a good thing, but ultimately just a publicity stunt to distract from the fascist President Yoon butchering the economy and targeting women, minorities, and disabled people.
There’s none, it’s based on what society tells you to feel empathy for. Dog eaters and corrida enjoyers are no different from people eating massively produced industrial chicken, they just live in an environment where it is normal to do that.
The base difference is that dogs evolved side by side with our species to develop and return emotional bonding and feedback with humans.
All other animals we managed to domesticate, at best, tolerate us or fear us. Cute little photos of cows and pigs enjoying being hugged and petted are exceptions, not norm.
I’ve been trying to understand, for years, what happened to turn dogs and cats food in asian countries (beside famines, hence desperation) but every single source I was ever able to find always gets muddled in exotheric notions of ”medicinal" use or some other folklore high tale.
For context: in Vietnam, cat meat is often served as being “little tiger”.
To the extent of my knowledge, the rest of the world never needed to wrap an animal in an exotheric tale to declare it as potential food.
This is an interesting angle. Makes me wonder, do we have a moral duty to reciprocate love and loyalty, or the potential for it? And if not, what basis can there be for treatment of human beings?
Interesting question from a chicken.
My concern is not morality and neither is that the issue here.
The animals we call farm animals today came from what are considered prey animals and the process of domestication was essentialy a process of reducing fear and wariness towards our species.
Dogs came to be from an apex predator that, we speculate, found advantageous to actively associate with our species for mutual benefit.
Different origins produced different outcomes.
I think there is a much easier explanation. People keep rabbits and guinea pigs as pets. They are much more of a “prey animal” than a wild hog, for example.
Humans simply find rabbits, dogs and cats more aesthetically pleasing / cute. That’s the whole secret to it. Some animals are liked by humans and get a bare minimum of compassion and some don’t. And that’s the biggest factor in our decision of which animals deserve to rot away in their own filth until slaughtered and which can enter our homes as “entertainers”.
Why does it need to be consistent? I think it’s fine to say I’m emotionally attached to this animal but not that one.
This TYPE of animal. It makes no sense. Either you are for animals or you don’t care about them.
That’s absurdly reductionist. All animals are not alike.
The animals some people eat are definitely much more alike to dogs and other pets than people want to believe. It’s pure cope to believe cows, pigs and chickens are somehow less worth because people find them less cuddly or whatever. Scientifically it is 100 % clear that the animals humans consume are physically and mentally able to suffer quite tremendously.
