Eating dogs

[James R]

Bring me a bull who can flush out birds, or bring me other food. Hell, show me a bull that can curl up at the foot of my bed, protect my mother while jogging, or let me know that little Timmy fell down a well.

Well, dogs can do tricks, but the cow's fart is actually increasing the greenhouse effect. Damn cows!!!

So, you both think that an animal's potential utility to you is what is important in deciding whether or not you eat it.

So, if a dog is old and lame, no longer able to flush out birds, protect your jogging mother or do tricks, then it would be fine to eat it.

Right?

 

[soccerace1214]

What's the difference between eating a dog and eating a cow?

Nothing. Its just like eating any other animal. Its just that we've created stupid ethics that we have to force onto other countries. Shows our ignorance. Just like when we protest the hunting of whales and dolphins.

 

[James R]

Bells:

Now in light of this, would I ever decide to eat Charles or start munching on him for a snack? No. Nor would I ever eat any other dog. Nothing would ever induce me to. Nor would I eat either of our cats or any other cats. I would honestly rather starve than eat Charles or any of his four legged bretheren or any feline variety. Call me strange or even hypocritical, but when I eat a steak, I do not equate it as being in any way similar to 'munching' down on a dog.

I don't think that's strange at all. I think most people would be repulsed at the idea of eating their own pets. Many would be less repulsed at eating animals of the same species that are not pets. And when we get to cows, which many urban people have essentially no direct contact with at all, there's a corresponding lack of any concern about what people eat.

The hypocrisy of meat eaters trying to distinguish one meat animal from another is astounding mainly in that meat eaters are so blind to it. They won't eat Rover their loved pet because Rover is one of the family. He's smarter than other dogs, and more lovable. Certainly much smarter and more lovable than any mere cow could ever be. Cows are only good for steak. They don't have personalities like Rover. No, they couldn't have.

Or so the reasoning goes.

soccerace1214:

Nothing. Its just like eating any other animal. Its just that we've created stupid ethics that we have to force onto other countries. Shows our ignorance. Just like when we protest the hunting of whales and dolphins.

Do you approve of whale hunting for their meat?

Is any animal not up for grabs when you want a snack?

If not, at least you're consistent.

 

[Bells]

Bells:

I don't think that's strange at all. I think most people would be repulsed at the idea of eating their own pets. Many would be less repulsed at eating animals of the same species that are not pets. And when we get to cows, which many urban people have essentially no direct contact with at all, there's a corresponding lack of any concern about what people eat.

The hypocrisy of meat eaters trying to distinguish one meat animal from another is astounding mainly in that meat eaters are so blind to it. They won't eat Rover their loved pet because Rover is one of the family. He's smarter than other dogs, and more lovable. Certainly much smarter and more lovable than any mere cow could ever be. Cows are only good for steak. They don't have personalities like Rover. No, they couldn't have.

Or so the reasoning goes.

I would not eat my own pet dog, just as I wouldn't eat any other dog, even those I do not know in the same manner that I do not know cows. I am sure that cows have personality, just as dogs and cats do. All animals have personality. I am not blind to my hypocrisy. On the contrary, I will gladly admit that I am a hypocrite when it comes to loving animals and eating meat.

In all honesty I am hypocritical in this regard. I do not see cow meat as being the same as dog meat or even chicken meat. Different animals and different species. Personally I do not eat dog or cat meat. I also do not eat veal, horse, kangaroo, camel, and various other animal species that exist and are served at the dinner table.

I am not a vegetarian because for me, being a vegetarian is dangerous to my health. I adore all animals, but sadly I must also eat some of the animal species. And it is a tad disturbing in a way.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

Cows are our prey, dogs are our partners. What's complicated about that?
It's like saying, "if you can ripoff a used car salesmen, why not rip off your grandma, what's the difference?".
There's a big difference and it's downright ignorant to not acknowledge it.
And I don't swallow the cultural differences each to their own crap either.
These cultures relied on dogs to drag them out of the jungle too, their dogs have earned their right to be a respected part of their society, they just lacked the integrity to not turn on them and devour them once they didn't need them anymore.
It's clearly a diabolical betrayal of epic proportions.

The animal's intelligence has nothing to do with it, it's about loyalty and respect, it's about choosing to be a decent human being rather than a lowly backstabbing snake with no conscience.
Go ahead and eat dogs, it just makes you utterly disgusting villainous scum, congratulations. I can't imagine anything tastes that good, let alone fucking dog for christ's sake.

 

[redarmy11]

Is any animal not up for grabs when you want a snack?

Logically, if you're a meat-eater, theyre all up for grabs. The only excuse for not chowing down on a particular species is if (a) they taste absolutely rank (an individual whim), or (b) we start running out of, say, whale steaks. Do you see any other difference between eating pig and eating whale (I deliberately chose pig rather than cow - pigs are intelligent)?

their dogs have earned their right to be a respected part of their society... It's clearly a diabolical betrayal of epic proportions.

What about cows - don't you respect them for providing you with all that lovely milk, butter and cheese? I do - as I'm forking their hind quarters into my greedily-waiting mouth.

Any smart person knows that eating any kind of meat these days is unnecessary (although a period of restructuring would be needed) and morally indefensible. We only do it because, like raping strangers, it feels good. Strong desires and moral weakness combine to show us up for the scum we are. Sickening human sentimentality is added to the already debased mix, and we then place all kinds of limits on ourselves to assuage our guilt: "well, I eat fish and white meat, but not red"; "well, I eat red meat but I won't eat Rex - I mean, he's so affectionate"; "well, I've eaten Rex but I won't eat whale - they have self-awareness". Do any meat-eaters think it's wrong to eat human? Tell that to a tiger. Personally, only human rights laws prevent me. But then I think I'm probably alone here in admitting that I eat other species because, where meat-eating's concerned, I'm a moral abyss. Edit: actually I now see that Bells admits to this too. Well done Bells.

I'm a monster and I'm making no excuses. Now bring your pet dog over here.

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

What about cows - don't you respect them for providing you with all that lovely milk, butter and cheese?

Yes, and their meat.
Dogs provide me with companionship, loyalty, defense, assistance in acquiring meat. Why are you trying to make out like the distinction is arbitrary?
The dog is a tribe member, the cow is a prey animal of said tribe.

Why not block your own point guard in a game of basketball? Why only block players of the opposing team? You respect the point guard for helping you win but don't you respect the other team for losing to you?
That's the kind of arguments you're making here, just bizarre ridiculous coments which indicate you're detached from the animal you are and ignorant of your history.

Do any meat-eaters think it's wrong to eat human? Tell that to a tiger.

It would be ridiculous to claim it's wrong for a tiger to eat people, we are prey animals to the tiger.
Cows are prey animals to us so it's similarly ridiculous to suggest it's wrong for us to eat them.
You don't have to "hate" them to do it either, angrily tearing the meat off the bones while muttering "fucking cow cunt" with a full mouth, no that would be totally inappropriate.
Angry violence is designed for inner-specific competition, not predator/prey relationships.
There's nothing disrespectfull about eating a prey animal, they kind of expect it, ofcourse they'd like a chance to evade you and they'd rather not be eaten, but they expect us to try.
Dogs certainly are not expecting us to eat them, that's a real fucking backstab if I've ever heard of one, and anyone who can't understand why comes across to me as an ignoramous. Lacking understanding, not posessing some kind of advanced open minded enlightenment, you're just out of touch with the real world.

 

[Tiassa]

Cold fish are, well, cold

So, you both think that an animal's potential utility to you is what is important in deciding whether or not you eat it.

So, if a dog is old and lame, no longer able to flush out birds, protect your jogging mother or do tricks, then it would be fine to eat it.

Wait ... wait ... ah, there it is. Deja whatsit? Anyway, this is a bit familiar, isn't it?

Look, as far as an ethical principle goes, if people want to eat dogs, that's their business. However, a dog's utility does not expire with age nor even with death. Train me a cow to herd sheep, sure. There's utility. But the dog's advantage is that it's damn near human. I know you're not devoid of emotion, so I'll skip the sarcasm: What do you have against relationships? Humans and dogs have relationships. We get along in ways that go beyond mere master and servant, or owner and asset. Have you ever seen someone sad receive comfort from a dog? Have you ever seen a sad dog receive comfort from a person? Humans and cattle do not associate in this manner. I'm not going to tell someone to not eat horse meat for ethical reasons, but I don't eat horse meat. Don't get me wrong: if I've been on a horse twice in my life, that's twice as many times as I can remember. But humans and their horses can develop meaningful relationships much the way people can with their dogs. I've never been on a wounded boat guided through treacherous waters by a dolphin, either, but I don't eat dolphins because (A) they're very possibly smarter than we are, and (B) dolphins give a flying frak about humans when they have no damn reason to.

Dogs, horses, dolphins .... The aspects of these animals that make me not desire them as food are not aspects that one can account for as economic utility. I don't need Patrick "Bull" Henry shouting, "Give me liberty, or make me a cheeseburger!" before I grant cattle the same status. But cows do need to affect my humanity in different ways before they are able to establish the kind of relationship that demands similar respect. It is the same reason I don't keep pet fish.

Intangibles, James, are very important. And someday people will figure out how to express certain values. Unless, of course, we pretend they aren't real because we can't list them in a ledger. And that would simply be a surrender to our ignorance.

 

[Prince_James]

I must throw in my two cents on Tiassa's side on this issue. I rather not violate that bond except in extreme circumstances.

 

[redarmy11]

"Dig deep and you'll find sentimentality," sneers Fitz. "It's been in every killer I've met - sickening sentimentality." - Excerpt from the British crime drama series, Cracker

Dogs provide me with companionship, loyalty, defense, assistance in acquiring meat. Why are you trying to make out like the distinction is arbitrary?

Because it is. This is an argument for not eating your pet dog(s). The dogs that are personally known to you. The ones you've grown fond of. Fair enough. Cuddle up to Rover and keep him safe from harm. But would it be ok to eat other dogs?

The dog is a tribe member, the cow is a prey animal of said tribe.

Tribes? So we're back in the stone-age now? Is it morally acceptable to attack members of other tribes and take what they have? And eat them if they taste nice. What about dirty, mangy strays that don't belong to any tribe, but just roam the streets stealing from people's bins and attacking children - can we eat them? Suppose I'm Korean and don't share your view of dogs as tribe members and companions - can I eat them then? Or is what you assume to be a universal worldview actually extremely culturally relative?

Why not block your own point guard in a game of basketball? Why only block players of the opposing team? You respect the point guard for helping you win but don't you respect the other team for losing to you?

I barely understand a word of this. Cultural relativism again. Think globally, Lou. The only bit that makes sense to me is the last bit. Yes to that, I respect the losing team (if they've done enough to earn it). But who said I have no respect for the things I eat? I mean, don't get me wrong, I love dogs. They're all the things you say they are - loyal, useful companions and all the rest. The only difference between us is that I want to assign them an extra attribute that you refuse to recognise: they're potentially extremely tasty.

Dogs certainly are not expecting us to eat them, that's a real fucking backstab if I've ever heard of one, and anyone who can't understand why comes across to me as an ignoramous. Lacking understanding, not posessing some kind of advanced open minded enlightenment, you're just out of touch with the real world.

No animal expects us to eat them. They just don't possess that level of self-awareness. As you implicitly recognised in your reference to our relations with tigers, most animals are predators and prey. We are, if we find ourselves lost in an unexplored area of the jungle. Is there something sacred about us that will throw a hungry tiger into a moral quandary? No - and we're potentially every bit as useful as dogs are. Hell, maybe even more so! So is there something sacred about dogs that makes them a gastronomic no-go area for the human race? Again, no. The only things stopping us is our humanity - call it morality, call it sentimentality, call it what you like. Whatever you call it, it does make a mockery of your whole philosophy - and yes I do read all your other posts with amusement and a degree of admiration. Nice to see you have a soft spot anyway.

You don't have to "hate" them to do it either, angrily tearing the meat off the bones while muttering "fucking cow cunt" with a full mouth

ROLF!

 

[Tiassa]

Tribes? So we're back in the stone-age now?

The bond between dogs and humans covers quite a span. These days, we simply say that dogs are part of the family.

 

[redarmy11]

I know. I was just making fun of Lou's delusional belief that he's some kind of Conan the Barbarian, stalking the still-cooling Earth, alone but for the ever-trusty mutt at his side.

 

[Plazma Inferno!]

Actually, we are already eating dogs and cats in our burgers and "dogs".

You all know that various cultures have various habits.

I'm not a vegetarian, but I have some principles what I could or couldn’t eat. Our ancestors ate wild boars and deer’s flesh, and not wolves or bears. From same reason we eat pork, cow, chicken or any other typical meat, and loathe on different eating habits. It’s our legacy.

It is also about animal torturing before butchering. Hanging and beating to death makes the dog meat more tender and tastier???
And why dogeaters leave dogs on the railroad tracks anyway? To get more delicious cutlets than usual?!

These are some pics of preparing dogs for human's feast. Human indeed!

Dog Hang
Awaiting Train To Come
Pressed Dogs

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

I know. I was just making fun of Lou's delusional belief that he's some kind of Conan the Barbarian, stalking the still-cooling Earth, alone but for the ever-trusty mutt at his side.

The point is that's the relationship. That's what dogs have evolved to be accustomed to. Ungulates have evolved being predated upon by the dog/human alliance.

I suppose if you want to murder a family you can then kill their dog. I still don't understand why you'd eat it. That's just dysfunctional behaviour. I'm reminded of the famous lion who adopted the orphaned oryx calf, there's a screw loose there somewhere.
It would make more sense to adopt the dog into your pack. If the family has a goat you can eat that. Or maybe check the fridge, you ravenous lunatic.

Suppose I'm Korean and don't share your view of dogs as tribe members and companions - can I eat them then?

No. Because when it suited your diabolical korean ass you relied on dogs in the same way real humans do. They assisted in dragging you out of the wild, and into a world where you have the capability and resources to build cages and keep animals for eating in them.
Now because you can you betray that relationship, stick them in the cage they built and eat them? You're a snake. A dishonourable low down filthy traitor. Bottomline. Slope.
"My culture's kind of different, we like raping babies, each to their own though hey? hehe" no, not each to their own. That is totally unacceptable.

No animal expects us to eat them. They just don't possess that level of self-awareness.

It's not an issue of self awareness, it's instinct. And it's telling that you don't naturally know that.
Evidently your instincts have shrivelled and calcified into a necrotic lump which lays dormant in your being, thanks to your captivity and limitted chances to develop and hone them.
You and your korean buddies clumsily struggle to use your conscious mind for everything, a tall order, no wonder there are these disturbing glitches in your views, such as not being able to discern between dogs and prey.

I gag at the prospect of dog meat, I don't have to think about my morals or anything, I don't have to reason, it's a reflex.
It's just not food to a well adjusted human being with an adequately developed set of instincts.
You've proven not smart enough to figure this out using your modest logic, I wouldn't have been either, luckily my instincts were in tact and now I can make sense of my instincts with the use of acquired knowledge about my species and it's history.

A deer in a zoo who is hand fed would have an underdeveloped set of instincts like you do. And yeah that would be something of a betrayal of trust to kill such a deer.
But a wild deer knows I'm a predator, trust me, they run.
That's an explicit expressed communication that it understands our relationship.
A scrub bull confronts me and challenges me to a fight if I approach his herd.
I rarely take him up on it, but I've known dogs that will, and there's no misunderstanding the altercation from any party.
Both dog and bull are engaging in the dance they were sculpted specifically to perform and they know their roles.
If I crept up behind my dog and stabbed him in the back while he fought the bull, while he toiled on my behalf, I think even the bull would step back and be like "whoa, that was just fucked up, you're a disgrace, are you korean?".
The dog certainly would be confused and bewildered over this diabolical deviation from the script.

Me, dog and bull are all familiar with the script, you and anyone who justifies dog eating are not. This is not a matter of opinion or "cultural relativism", it dates back to before there were different cultures, all cultures share this heritage.

 

[mountainhare]

James:

They won't eat Rover their loved pet because Rover is one of the family.

Don't you value the life of one of your close family members over that of a stranger?

 

[redarmy11]

Lou:

There are lots of reasons why humans have evolved to avoid dining on carnivores. Good, common-sense, practical reasons that have nothing to do with what your 'instincts' tell you is right and wrong:

1. Most of them taste horrible. People who have eaten bear say that it stinks to high heaven and tastes worse. Eating an animal with 4 pounds of stinking, rotten meat in it's digestive system is hardly most people's idea of haute cuisine.

2. At least bears have the advantage of being fatty. Most carnivores are lean, mean, killing machines, built for speed. Even if you can catch them without getting injured or killed, most of them contain barely enough meat to replace the energy you spent in catching them. Their relative intelligence and heightened awareness make them an especially hard-won meal.

3. Many carnivores hunt by night. As a diurnal species with poor night-vision, it's neither in our instincts or our best interests to go lion-hunting in the dark. For those foolish enough to do so our fellow 'predator', the lion, will be eternally grateful.

4. The natural shape of the food chain is pyramidal: this ensures that the higher up it you go the less potential meals you're likely to find. I'd suggest that this is the main reason we've evolved to eat mainly herbivoral species: there are simply far more of them about.

So you see, it's a bit more complicated than what your gut tells you will make a tasty meal. I'd suggest that if carnivores were more plentiful we'd quickly get over how bad they taste, as well as the difficult and hazardous business of catching them, and incorporate more of them into our diet.

Why? Because we're not lean, powerful predators, biologically adapted to favour a particular diet. We're omnivores - and opportunist ones at that. Our closest cousin as far as our dietary habits are concerned is probably the pig. Like us, pigs will eat virtually anything, from shrubs and leaves, nuts and berries, to small deer, and even the remains of dead animals (including dead pigs). Morality tells us to stop short of cannibalism but, that aside, we have a great deal in common.

I'd suggest that what you see as instinct is just 1000s years of cultural development based, in the first instance, on a few relatively quickly-absorbed lessons on what's easy to catch and tastes good... and what isn't. Instinct and gut feelings have little to do with it - and, where they do, then it is the instincts of the opportunist scavenger that drive us, not those of our natural predators (the big cats; the alligator and the croc; the shark).

Of course, we're no longer running about the savannah in buffalo furs. We've evolved to develop a wide variety of contradictory cultures.

In the West, we eat pig and cow but shun dog; whereas, in India, eating cow is considered worse then eating dog, cat or your grand-parents; and amongst the ancient Hebrews it was the pig, not the cow, that was considered most holy (that's why Yahweh made them 'unclean' - to stop people from eating them).

Meanwhile in China, Korea, Taiwan and elsewhere dogs have a more central place on the international smorgasbord than we, in our squeamishness, are prepared to give them. Not only do they like the taste but it's widely believed that canine flesh has medicinal properties and enhances virility. Scoff away if you like. I'm not so sure that the ancient secrets of Chinese medicine can be easily dismissed so, personally, I'm keeping an open mind.

Other posters have mentioned inhumane farming methods. The way they treat their canine comestibles prior to consumption (eg some think throwing boiling oil over them before the kill will make the meat more tender) is a separate issue. I'd definitely prefer that they're kept and killed in a more humane manner - but any objections to the actual eating of them are purely cultural. That you should compare eating dog to raping babies is strong evidence of the emotional investment which guides your thoughts on this.

You have man's practical, make-do nature and the evolution of Western culture to thank for your present position, Lou. Instinct and the 'natural' way of things barely get a look-in.

http://www.leatherweather.com/sordid/korea/dog.html
Koreans claim that dog has great medicinal properties and tastes great too - sort of like beef, but gamy. But they don't just eat any dog. They prefer the dog with the yellow hair, or something that looks pretty much like a German Shepherd. My brother's family occasionally eats dog, and he took me to a dog farm and explained the procedure for scoring dog. First, you choose the dog that you want to eat. Then he's hit in the head with a baseball bat, his fur is burned off with a blow torch and he's cut into steaks. Did I mention that they feel that the dog who's only eaten shit his whole life is the tastiest? So they only feed the dogs shit their whole lives, although I'm not sure whose shit they're fed.
I guess if I was locked in a cage for a long time and only given shit to eat, sooner or later, I'd be eating shit too.

Making you hungry? Yes, killing a dog for your dinner is illegal, but that doesn't mean you can't scrape food off your local streets and highways. All you'll need for street hunting is a large garbage bag and some rubber gloves. Look for a fresh kill - the blood should be uncoagulated with no flies present. A stew or dog street pizza is your best bet, since you'll probably be working with chunks instead of steaks. Korean dogs are probably a little better tasting than Michigan dogs, but I've never seen a dog who didn't enjoy eating an occasional pile of shit, and hopefully your score has eaten a lot. Happy hunting!

http://www.aapn.org/stbernard.html
Chinese experts recently found that for massive captive breeding and killing for meat, the best kind of dogs is the Saint Bernards, which are imported from Switzerland, also called "Big Dumb Dog".

According to the China Central Television in Beijing, the experts pointed out that Saint Bernards are fast growing and disease resistant. The advantages of using them for food dogs are that they eat less than other dogs but breed fast. Because they rest immediately after meals, they grow faster too, on average gaining over one pound per day. Within a month, they could grow to be over 30 pounds. In three to four months, they will be ready for the market.

Beside the obvious advantage of fast growing , Saint Bernard also breed fast. On Average a female gives birth once a year. Litter size usually is around nine to twelve, nearly double that of other breeds. The CCTV reports also stressed that Saint Bernards are kind and friendly in nature. They don not bite people, so the breeders need not worry. "Big Dumb Dogs" are usually trained for rescue purposes in winter.

 

[redarmy11]

These are some pics of preparing dogs for human's feast. Human indeed!

Dog Hang
Awaiting Train To Come
Pressed Dogs

Do you like veal?

 

[invert_nexus]

Lou,

I suppose if you want to murder a family you can then kill their dog. I still don't understand why you'd eat it. That's just dysfunctional behaviour.

"To all the varied articles of diet that we have enumerated, man added the greatest delicacy of all--his fellowman. Cannibalism was at one time practically universal; it has been found in nearly all primitive tribes, and among such later peoples as the Irish, the Iberians, the Picts, and the eleventh-century Danes. Among many tribes human flesh was a staple of trade, and funerals were unknown. In the Upper Congo living men, women and children were bought and sold frankly as articles of food; on the island of New Britain human meat was sold in shops as butcher's meat is sold among ourselves; and in some of the Solomon Islands human victims, preferably women, were fattened for a feast like pigs. The Fuegians ranked women above dogs because, they said, "dogs taste of otter." In Tahiti an old Polynesian chief explained his diet to Pierre Loti: "The white man, when well roasted, tastes like a ripe banana." The Fijians, however, complained that the flesh of the whites was too salty and tough, and that a European sailor was hardly fit to eat; a Polynesian tasted better.

What was the origin of this practice? There is no surety that the custom arose, as formerly supposed, out of a shortage of other food; if it did, the taste once formed survived the shortage, and became a passionate predilection. Everywhere among nature peoples blood is regarded as a delicacy--never with horror; even primitive vegetarians take to it with gusto. Human blood is constantly drunk by tribes otherwise kindly and generous; sometimes as medicine, sometimes as a rite or covenant, often in the belief that it will add to the drinker the vital force of the victim. No shame was felt in preferring human flesh; primitive man seems to have recognized no distinction in morals between eating men and eating other animals. In Melanesia the chief who could treat his friends to a dish of roast man soared in social esteem. "When I have slain an enemy," explained a Brazilian philosopher-chief, "it is surely better to eat him than to let him waste.... The worst is not to be eaten, but to die; if I am killed it is all the same whether my tribal enemy eats me or not. But I could not think of any game that would taste better than he would.... You whites are really too dainty."
----Will Durant - The Story of Civilization Vol. 1​

This is on topic as dogs are highly anthropomorphized in our culture. You, yourself, equate eating dogs with eating tribe members (and I view the tribal viewpoint as valid. We do still consist of tribes, we just call the tribes by different names.)

This matter is a wholly cultural one.
Personally, I'd eat a dog. Maybe a bite just to see what it tasted like. But, more if I needed food. I'd wrinkle my nose and wouldn't eat with gusto (although who knows what I might feel within. I'd at least put on the show of propriety. The disdain for eating man's best friend.)

A deer in a zoo who is hand fed would have an underdeveloped set of instincts like you do. And yeah that would be something of a betrayal of trust to kill such a deer.

What about cows raised in a feed lot? They're surely not educated to their oncoming deaths. Their instincts are surely stunted by the bizarre manner of their environment. Surely they come to trust the providers of their food. In fact, isn't this exactly the product of domestication that we seek out in food animals? This trusting and docile behavior? Isn't the domestication of a food animal an objective instillation of a betrayal of trust?

Note: Packing plants are designed so as the cows do not become frightened before their death. Scared meat is infused with adrenaline and is noxious. This brings up another topic. This flavor should be a delicacy to a hunter species. A species that takes great pleasure in running down its prey. And yet, the perfect kill for a human hunter is through the heart before the animal knows what's coming. This prevents the souring of the meat through fear.

How long has this practice been the norm? Are we hunters at all? Perhaps this is a remnant of our scavenger history?

And, is it possible that we can thank the dog for raising us above scavenger status? Perhaps this plays into the cultural loyalty which many of us feel?


RedArmy,

Not only do they like the taste but it's widely believed that canine flesh has medicinal properties and enhances virility.

The chinese believe everything enhances virility and has medicinal properties. I don't think there's anything that the chinese don't eat.
Anything.

and amongst the ancient Hebrews it was the pig, not the cow, that was considered most holy (that's why Yahweh made them 'unclean' - to stop people from eating them).

I've never heard the pig described as holy. They are unclean, along with a whole host of other animals. Dogs included.
Doesn't the classification have to do with their feet?

 

[Dr Lou Natic]

This matter is a wholly cultural one.

No, you're wrong.
I'm getting this kind of condescending vibe from you guys like "oh he's not aware of the fact that some cultures view dogs as food, lolol, the innocence of western ignorance".
No, keep up, you're way behind.
I'm saying those cultures have betrayed dogs in the most inexcusable manner. Not the individual korean dog-eater whose doing what his culture dictates. The whole culture has committed a sinister "dog act", and we don't need to respect it. They were innately wrong to take that route.

It's not just western civilisation which owes dogs, it's human beings.
It was only after dogs lifted humans out of the stone age that we were comfortable enough to mutate in this plethora of directions we call cultures.
Any culture which then decided to stab dogs in the back is fundamentally fucked up for this reason.
My baby raping analogy is perfectly valid.
It's just not an option any culture had the right to take without facing derision.

There's nothing more obnoxious then enlightened assholes sipping wine in front of a fire, having an open minded discussion about respecting cultural differences "whose to say it's wrong to eat dogs? Just because our culture finds them adorable? please..."
That's not it at all you ignorant ingrate motherfucker.
Our culture treats dogs exactly how they should be treated.
Their ancestors litterally worked like fucking dogs building civilisation and dieing in wars to earn them the right to the same comforts we all enjoy.
Man and dog were a team, and this reward of modern civilisation belongs equally to each.
If you want to eat dog you can go out to the woods and lie in the cold mud, gnawing on your "delicious" dog-thigh while howling wolves circle in on your pathetic vulnerable half-an-organism ass.

 

[mountainhare]

LOL. That's the best thing I've read in a while, Dr. Lou.

As usual, I agree with you (to an extent). I view the killing of all 'prey' animals unnecessary in today's day and age. However, I view the killing of a dog far more abhorrent and detestable than killing an animal designated as prey (although I still disapprove, as meat eating is no longer necessary for a healthy lifestyle in most cases).

After all, the dog is a member of the tribe. A team member. It is the height of treachery to turn against an ally who you owe your good living to. And even though dogs may no longer be hunting partners, they are still partners in other senses. They are loyal companions, who tend to be more trustworthy than our fellow human beings. 'A dog is a man's best friend' is a very truthful proverb.

Have you ever considered writing a book about your views on current issues, Dr. Lou? It would make an interesting read.