Do you think that the consumption of dogs and cats should be illegal? Why?

@gymgoer205: It is immoral to eat an animal which we cater for so much, as society has evolved, we as humans have done more for these animals: vets, dog shows, dog training, etc. They are bred to be pets; not food, as cattle were.

If however, one was forced to eat a Dog due to starvation, then yes.

@wolverine08: Do you have an intelligent argument to back up your statement?

Pigs and Cows are bred for food. Dogs are not.

Why would that make it immoral.

Besides, vets just don't handle pets.

@frozen: So? In the end their both animals.

Besides, as I mentioned my mom loved the pigs and cows on her farm as much as she loved her dog. If pigs and cows were treated the way dogs were most people would probably refuse to eat bacon and beef, or not, depending on where you live.

@frozen: Not everyone looks at dogs that way though. Are you saying that the opinions of the majority should dictate the rights of the minority? In some places they hold pig shows. Should pork be banned as well? And what, pigs and cows don't go to the vet?

@_gaff_: Because for hundreds of years we have bred them for tasks to aid us, and to be house pets, and now we decide to eat them because people eat Cows and Pigs? Very tedious.

Those competitions look like they are testing the heaviest Cow; to see which will make the best meat.

So are Lions, Tigers, Gorillas and even Humans.

Instead of putting exotic animals in the Zoo, should we butcher and eat them instead? Because we do this to cattle?

Pigs are not treated the same way due to culture; a culture that has been manufactured for over a thousand years. We bred Dogs from Wolves and over time, created breeds for specific needs; so in a Western society, most Dog breeds have been bred for helpful tasks, or to just be pets, why should we eat them if our society has catered so much for them?

I did not say everyone thought that way; hence the fact that I originally said Western society, due to difference in culture. Pigs and Cows DO go to the Vets but the services offered for Dogs are much more vast; at my local Vets, toys for Dogs are offered, treats, microchips, etc for sale.

Our culture has bred Dogs for a reason so shifting that just because we eat Cattle would change a major part of our society and I do not see the gain in it.

@frozen: I like how you ignored my question. I'll ask again for the sake of good debate. Do you think that the opinions of the majority should dictate the rights of the minority?

@frozen: I have absolutely no objection to the consumption of zoo animals, as long as they're not an endangered species.

What does time have to do with the question of it being morally wrong?

So a dog in a western country has more rights than a dog in a dog-eating culture?

If your logic is ''Because we eat Cattle, then we can do for Dogs'' then I question how your response is in the moral light.

But, the question was: Do you think that the consumption of dogs and cats should be illegal? Why?

My response is still justified.

Yes, it's possible that we could, I mean I've always wanted to try out lion and if people eat snake, why not lion?

Maybe here (I assume you're in the US/Canada), people treat dogs and cats like companions, but elsewhere someone may view them as food, some may also value cows or pigs as much as we value dogs and cats.

If we're on the same page and talking about USA/Canada here, it's a country made up of people from all over the place. I say no because honestly, each and every person has their own different set of values and beliefs. You may value dogs and cats but another may not. And just because a dog or cat is bred or loved by a bunch of people doesn't change the fact that their an animal. Dogs and cats can be just as vicious as a lion or a human can be. Why do you occasionally here reports of someone being attacked by someone's "beloved" pet dog, or people saying how they made their cat mad and so he/she scratched the owner (an owner who probably loved their cat).

What?

Dude. Maybe its time you conceded the argument.

And you did not answer my second question. Do you think some dogs have more rights than others?

@saint_sophie: I agree with this statement. Don't hold your breath waiting for an educated response from this guy though. His bias is pretty clear.

@saint_sophie: Different cultures having their own beliefs is precisely why it should be illegal. In Western culture, it has been rigorously reinforced that Dogs are companion pets and they are bred for that purpose. Should we start breeding wild exotic animal to herd Cats? I think not. Dogs have a different purpose alltogether and suddenly wanting to eat them because we eat other animal makes little logical sense.

People from other cultures who migrate to the USA should not necessarily impose their culture --- honor killings are often of Middle-Eastern culture, should we accept these values and beliefs too?

So another person not valuing them is what sets apart culture. In China, that culture's values, may see Dogs as a food source, whereas in a Western country the culture is different. There are people in the USA of all different faiths but many of those do become ''Westernized''.

I answered your OP question in good enough detail. The question is completely irrelevant, I would answer no.

I reserve the right to eat anyone who eats a dog.

The truth is not bias.

Going with ''Hey, if one animal gets eaten, then why not all?'' is a dangerous and illogical argument. I am giving you detail yet you are throwing it away and instead posing a simplistic question which does not address the implications.

@_gaff_: How can I concede if an actual argument has not been presented? You have posed me questions, not an actual debate.

No, some dogs do not have more rights than others. But again, why are you asking that?

I wouldn't say we should start farming dogs and cats for food but there are circumstances where it should be condoned, for instance I have a dog that I love but if my daughter was starving and there were no other options I wouldn't hesitate to cook him up. Itd be a last resort and I'd feel awful about it but I don't think anyone should go to jail over it.

Good point. Pigs, in particular, are just about as intelligent as dogs are (probably even MORE intelligent than some dogs. Yeah, I'm looking at you chihuahuas.) And it's not uncommon for them to be domesticated as pets. But almost nobody, even the people who keep them as pets, have any moral issue with eating bacon.

And cows are considered absolutely sacred in some parts of the world, but in the US we eat beef more than pretty much any other meat.

Animals are animals. Meat is meat.

Because you are basing your stance on the grounds that since western cultures did not domesticate dogs for food, it would be wrong to eat them.

Some non-western cultures have domesticated dogs for food. So I assume you are ok with people in those cultures eating dogs.

This would mean that dogs in western cultures have more rights than dogs in dog-eating cultures.

@frozen: You say no but your entire case contradicts that statement.

Here are some quotes from you.

"It is immoral to eat an animal which we cater for so much" As I stated before, not everyone caters to dogs so much. Some people cater to pigs and cows. Why aren't you taking the feelings of those people into consideration? Sounds like the majority dictating the rights of the minority to me.

"They are bred to be pets; not food, as cattle were." So because the majority of the people in the west look at dogs as pets, the minority who move here must forfeit a traditional dish? Sounds like the majority dictating the rights of the majority to me.

"Because for hundreds of years we have bred them for tasks to aid us, and to be house pets, and now we decide to eat them because people eat Cows and Pigs? Very tedious." First off, I don't think you know what the word tedious means. And again, so what? Some people don't care about the hundreds of (actually thousands get your facts straight) years of history between humans and dogs. To some they're food. Who are you to impose your morality (which you did in post #51) on them? That sounds like the majority dictating the rights of the minority to me.

Spin it however you want, you have to be one sick motherf*cker to eat a cat or dog voluntarily. Keeping it illegal suits me just fine.

@_gaff_: Congratulations on thoroughly owning him. He'll be back for more though. His bias won't allow him to give up the last word. Pity.

You reserve the right to eat... pretty much most of the population of Korea?
That's a bit of a shocking stance.

Yes.

The way I view it is to what extent (right); does the human have in each given culture, not the animal. Humans make the laws, in Hindu culture, the Cow is sacred, so thus the Religious perspective/influence is exercised by the human.

This.

Congratulations on responding to your own sock account. Couldn't be any more obvious; try harder.

1. Nonsense statement. Western society panders to the house-pet; the media accompanies that view, in addition to literature. Notice how I say Western. What feelings are you referring to? If you refer to Muslim, those who do not eat Bacon in Western society, will not do so. Their rights are intact, as with Hindus and Cow.

2. No. They do not ''look'' at them to be pets: they were BRED for thousands of years to be pets; the Western society however, hatched onto that notion harder.

The minority that move must abide their laws, which are just by the culture that place has.

3. Is this your argument? Your logic is essentially saying ''hey, I have my culture but I don't like your law! so, let me move past that!'' --- it's not my morality, it's a morality which has been socialized into a culture. There is a foundation for it. Additionally, the term tedious is justified, per-se dull.

By your logic, are honor killings also justified in the clash of culture?

@i_like_swords: I'd bet my bottom dollar that you eat either beef or pork.

Well sure as thunder can't be just any cat or dog off the street, now.

@frozen:

"Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience." Your bias and lack of ability to admit defeat tells me a lot about your character.

I'm through conversing with the likes of you.

Enjoy your day.

I don't know if I could bring myself to eating a dog...in fact seeing the pics of the way they're treated before being "processed" in those countries makes me cry...but that's because of where and how I was raised....I'm american and I've grown up with dogs that were a part of the family....the people in the countries where it's a regular thing to eat dog meat...that's normal for them...it's part of their culture....I may not like it but I don't expect it to change because of my dislike...it's not hurting me personally so why should it be changed?

Flagged.

Though the term ''bias'' is ironic considering your stark opposition to Yes voters for your own, ''unbias'' poll.

Enjoy.

@jedixman@bumpyboo

I think there's a big question that's being missed in this debate:

Since laws involving legality are ultimately supposed to be based on moral principles, what do we do when some moral principles are not universally accepted?

The primary reasoning for those arguing "Yes" in this poll is that cats and dogs are percieved differently than other 'livestock' animals in most Western culture. To us, eating dogs and eating cows just aren't the same thing at all.
But in a lot of Asian cultures, it's considered completely normal to eat dogs and cats. So how could Western culture (particularly America, which is a cultural melting pot) pass a law like that when it's based on a moral principle that isn't universally held?

Or, on the flipside of that: in Hindu culture, it's considered wrong to eat or harm cows. In Western culture, cows are eaten more than almost anything else. Should those who follow Hinduism be able to pass a law that makes it illegal to eat cows, even in Western regions?

TL;DR - Laws are supposed to be based on moral values. So how could we eat cows and pass a law against eating dogs when a lot of the rest of the world eats dogs and considers it wrong to eat cows?

@frozen: You've never kissed a girl. Stay mad.

No, simply put.

Let's flip the argument: if Americans went to India and argued PRO Cow-slaughter by citing their own culture as justification, how do you think that would go down?

So pretty much all of Korea is a bunch of 'sick mother...ers"?

Either you think that most of Asia is totally sickening for eating what they eat, or the issue of eating cats and dogs is opinion-based and not morality-based.

Absolutely not. It's asinine to argue otherwise.

Hindu's have legitimate reasons for ruling out harm to cows. It is part of their worldview and religious belief system that cows have the reincarnated souls of people.

Our only reason against eating dogs is that we find that they make better pets than pigs or cows.

@frozen: Actually there's a huge difference. You may love you're dog but it is not a living symbol of your god on Earth.

Honestly, because of its foundation in their worldview and belief system, I would argue that Hindus have MORE of a right to push for the illegality of eating cows than we do for the illegality of eating dogs.

Illegal? No.

The only situations in which I can really agree with an animal being illegal to consume is if it's endangered, one of those survival animals I keep hearing about (is that actually a thing?), or if it belongs to someone. There's probably more laws out there regarding what animals one can and can't legally eat, and I'm unaware of them, but I'm sure they're fantastic and logical and all in all I see nothing wrong with the laws that are already in place about consuming animals.

@joshmightbe: @kaang_the_watcher: I'm fully aware of what it means to India. I lived in India.

But, the way in which a Western society would value Dogs, is similar to how a Hindu would a Cow. It's in Western Culture to prioritize Dogs and it has increased over the years, so to argue that ''they are just animals'' would go down horrendously with the way the culture has been socialized.

That is why, in the USA, people love Dogs, but would not be hesitant to eat a Cow.

Congratulations on responding to your own sock account. Couldn't be any more obvious; try harder.

Nope.

@jedixman@bumpyboo@sc Can one of you look at the ip and confirm gymgoer is not an alt. Please do. I consider this an insult to my character.

No, it shouldn't be illegal. Humans have rights; animals do not have rights.

The only difference between eating a cat and eating a cow is that most people don't have cows as pets and would feel guilty eatig a potential pet.

@joshmightbe: @kaang_the_watcher: To think of it, the fact that the outlook on Dogs comes from a non-religious perspective perhaps strengthens the case.

@frozen: But its really not similar on the whole, in fact in most of Western Culture putting religious significance on any animal is generally frowned upon regardless of our personal feelings. Basically saying that Hindu's feelings toward cows is the same as our feelings toward dogs is like saying a Catholic's feelings about Jesus is the same as our feelings about Carpenters.

@joshmightbe: I need to clarify because I'm sounding muddy.

There are Hindus, who do not involve themselves in the doctrine that much and are essentially ''Hindu for the sake of being Hindu'' (just as anyone of any religion is doing it for the sake of it, or as your parents are that religion, you adopt their religion as your own): it tends to be older people who are more involved in the religion, so naturally, they do not eat Beef. A western outlook on a Dog however, is much more personal in comparison to THAT type of Hindu (which is a fair amount).

I'm an Atheist, though I was raised Sikh and I did not eat Beef (complicated mix with Hindu) yet my personal feelings towards Dogs were stronger than that of a Cow.

If anything, does a religious perspective NEED to be put onto the importance? The culture/attitudes towards something can be non-religious yet significant to that culture.

@frozen: To get back to the point at hand tho, I do agree that raising cats and dogs for the sole purpose of food would be viewed as horrifying to the western world but if it was a survival issue, I wouldn't hold it against someone for eating a dog as a last resort. That's what makes this a grey area for me.

I think the delivery charge is a bit much just to send out for some Korean. I'm sure there is something closer to home.