Having had dogs as pets all my life, (anthropomorphic thinking or not) I cannot conceive of them as livestock, and find them more humane than many people I have met ( who I wouldn’t eat either ;).

An argument based on personal experience and preferance I know, but the more people I meet, the more I like my dogs.

In any case, this legislation is a good move. Reduces health risks and animal abuse. Sounds like a good deal to me.

**DISCLAIMER: The following is a DEVIL’S ADVOCATE argument.**

If we can’t distinguish between types of animals and the morality of eating this or that particular one (which is what I’ve been doing), then why is cannibalism wrong? What if I’m a witch doctor or whatever, and I come in here calling all of you cultural imperialists for condemning my favorite meal of person meat?

I said logical justification, colontos. Your only justification is that dogs have been bred for the purpose of companionship, a claim refuted many times in the comments above by like 6 different people.

a) It’s impossible to know the ‘intention’ of the initial generations of breeders who bred dogs out of wolves. You are assuming a position of observation that you cannot possibly reach short of inventing a time machine.

b) Even if it were so, there is no moral imperatives one way or the other on the issue. Your argument, that we’re violating the purpose of dog’s existence, does not link to moral-assigning words like ’should’ ‘ought’ or ‘wrong’.
(ex: Apples are meant to be eaten. If I play baseball with one, is that a morally condemnable action?)

The only way you would be able to assign moral values to this discussion is to somehow give more moral worth than other animals that we all seem to fit to consume. If we accept that the breeding purposes is the sole criteria, then any dog sellers/consumers can escape your argument by claiming that they have bred the dogs they are selling/eating for the purpose of consumption - after all, they hold no less importance than the breeders of distant past.

c) Because there are numerous countries with histories of eating dogs (with no famine), your contention that dog has been bred for companionship is not categorical - therefore, either your argument is false, or you exclude people of those countries from your definition of human.

Uh huh…. so we’re going to give more regard to what some long-dead dog breeder thought than what our tastebuds tell us. But eating a dingo is okay, because they’re not ‘not meant to be eaten’. So, as soon as someone finds a use for an animal, and breeds for that use (other than eating), that immediately forecloses all the descendants of that animal from being eaten in a socially-acceptable manner? Better lay off the beef then, since cows have been used as draft animals (and bred as such) for thousands of years. Cows, just like dogs, are multi-purpose.

@28 (who understands just fine) - Well, the question here is: why is it okay to eat a pig, but not okay to eat a dog? My answer to this question is that dogs might be the only animal in the world (except, possibly, horses, but don’t quote me on that) that is literally *not meant* to be eaten. As in, Golden retrievers (to use your example) were literally created by humans for specific purposes other than for food (in this case, for retrieving). That’s why, in my view, modern dogs should not be eaten: they literally are meant to serve other functions. That’s my argument; you may disagree.

Sounds like somebody has finally entered the mental realm of PETA…

What is the logical justification of eating dog = bad then? I’m pretty sure there are quite a number of justification on why cannibalism is wrong (probably runs in the same course as say, why murder is wrong).

It seems that eating is wrong, but somehow neutering, surgically removing vocal cords, and killing the dogs at the shelter are A-OK.

It’s not like anyone here is condoning horrid abuse employed in the back alley shops or stealing other people’s precious pets, now are we?

@23 - One is bred for sport, one is bred for food. That’s the difference.

@25 - Don’t you perceive a difference between fattening something up and breeding an animal for generations? Maybe I’m too much of a country boy, but the differences are immediately obvious to me. As for dog fighting, pitbulls are indeed bred to be badasses. That’s why they are good for and legitimately used as guard dogs, attack dogs, etc. Anyone who knows much about dogs wlll tell you that dog fighting is nothing but a waste of good, useful dogs.

Let me turn the cannibalism question back on you. If historical precendent makes dog-eating okay, what about cannibalism? There are plenty of historical precedents for that. Same goes for the cultural imperialism argument. Who are we to tell those folks on those islands (can’t remember who exactly) that eating people is wrong?

If you can’t draw a distinction between dogs and, say, pigs, then how can you draw one between pigs and people?