The Instigator
china666
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ragnar
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

In North America, the taboo associated with the consumption of dog meat is logically unreasonable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Ragnar
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/13/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,077 times Debate No: 33643
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

china666

Pro

I will start this debate by first stating that I do not personally eat dog meat and that I live in North America. However, I do find North American society's negative stigma and expectations towards the consumption of dog meat, especially in Asian culture, to be unreasonable and culturally myopic.

My first point is in the form of a question. Why are dogs different? Let me answer with a few possible and likely conclusions which you may respond with. Possible answers may include: they are loyal, they are mankind's best friend, they are friendly, they understand you, they "just" different from other animals, and it would be just "wrong". Although I do not refute any of the aforementioned qualities of dogs, I would like to point out to voters that all of these qualities are not intrinsic of the dog but rather, merely qualities that are defined by our perception and relationship towards dogs. Dogs are loyal. Sure. However, so are many other animals. There is no loyal "gene" that is unique to dogs and no other animals. They are mankind's best friend. Sure. However, they are only defined as mankind's best friend through their popularity as a family pet in North American culture. Why can't a cow be mankind's best friend? The simple answer is "no reason at all". A cow could be held in the exact same social prestige as a dog if it underwent the specific cultural and social relationships with humans throughout history that the dog did. Thus, I can veritably conclude that dogs, specifically the societal esteem that dogs are held in as opposed to other animals which we slaughter in the millions every day, is not an intrinsic quality of the species itself but rather, a direct result of cultural and social relationships that we have had with them throughout history. Therefore, I find it logically incorrect to declaim those we eat dog meat as "monsters" or "moral abominations" or even "gross". They are doing nothing wrong save infringing on your dear North American cultural expectations. Is it fair for them to suffer for not conforming to your ways?
Ragnar

Con

Welcome china666, and thanks for starting this interesting debate topic. I initially did not take this; however due to forum request I'm accepting the challenge.

Definitions (I'm not trying for semantics, nor am I the instigator, thus pro may propose alternatives):
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary
Logic is "interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable" [1].
Taboos are "banned on grounds of morality or taste" [2].
Unreasonable is "not conformable to reason: absurd" [3].
Absurd (directed from unreasonable) is "having no rational or orderly relationship to human life" [4].

Arguments:
First there's the obvious outcry arguments: dogs are loyal, cute, there's health risks, etc. (if you're bored check source [5]). On the basis that these could all be rightly applied to currently harvested animals, and the resolution is not about going vegetation, these points are too low in relevance for more than this honorable mention.

Second there's the simple reality: In America there is a socially constructed stigma, which has been enhanced by visible cruelty to animals. Dog fights, puppy mills, on so on. Vile acts against them have resulted in protection laws against eating deceased ones in 6 states (according to The Wallstreet Journal [6]), and there's an ongoing battle in Hawaii to ban it [7], perhaps to protect tourism as they are already scalded for being in the 5 worst states in enforcement of animal protection laws [8]. Even the slaughter of livestock is done behind closed doors, with lobbyists making it illegal for animal rights groups to sneak cameras in.

Basically it boils down to socially constructed moral values, and a line in the sand; perhaps due to where the slaughter would take place. It is logical that we have these sets of moral values, as it's the conclusion of how we have socially engineered ourselves. It is reasonable, as within North America it is tied to the orderly relationships of human life, consider the sight of service animals which are most visibly dogs.

Rebuttals (will overlap with the above, but I'll limit how much I repeat myself):
  1. Why are dogs different?
    First because we ethically and legally define them as being different.
    Second because of how easy they are to reshape quickly, and the hobby/profession that has risen to tailoring them as pets and as incredibly valuable tools (aid animals, bomb sniffers, police, etc. [8]).
  2. They are only defined as mankind's best friend through their popularity as a family pet in North American culture.
    True, yet that makes the taboo quite reasonable to have in North America (granted it remains a taboo, but one that is reasonable to have).
  3. A cow could be held in the exact same social prestige as a dog if it underwent the specific cultural and social relationships with humans throughout history that the dog did.
    True, and in some parts of the world cows are protected. However in North America it is the dog (and other pets) to which humans have a sense of shared history and companionship with.
  4. It['s] logically incorrect to declaim those we eat dog meat as "monsters" or "moral abominations" or even "gross."
    If raised to believe something is wrong, it's perfectly logical to hold onto that belief; doubly so when other meat is available at lower prices. Further, I don't see how people in other parts of the world are actually suffering for not conforming to the North American cultural expectations. It's just North Americas (and perhaps some other countries) being a little odd when they travel.


Sources:
[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[3] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[4] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[5] http://www.petloverscompanion.com...
[6] http://online.wsj.com...
[7] http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com...
[8] http://channel.nationalgeographic.com...

Debate Round No. 1
china666

Pro

china666 forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

Sadly pro was unable to join us for round 2.

Extend all arguments.

Additional thought:
Within North America the taboo against consumption of dog meat is logically reasonable, for a pretty simple reason that most means of attaining the meat in question would violate local laws; not to mention be unsightly to the neighbors (where the taboo comes into play). Doing the same to a cow within urban areas (as most of the population resides), would be equally taboo and illegal. In North America there's a nice removal from death. That we farm our meat away from where we live, is an intrinsic part of our society and therefore culture.
Debate Round No. 2
china666

Pro

china666 forfeited this round.
Ragnar

Con

Extend all arguments.

If anyone has any questions on this topic, please ask in the comments section.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
One criticism I can see against my arguments here, is they were almost certainly begging the question. Plus they had little or no Pathos appeal, as I personally don't see the big deal about consuming any type of animal.
Posted by Ragnar 4 years ago
Ragnar
Some people say it tastes like wet dog smells, however I suspect such taste stems from ill health of the dog in question.

Blogger Mark Wiens of travel food website migrationology.com says "It"s a red meat, quite fatty, and extremely fragrant. Take a cross between beef and mutton, add extra meaty flavouring, and you"ve got the taste of dog."
Posted by Buddamoose 4 years ago
Buddamoose
I've always wondered what dog and cat tastes like...
Posted by leojm 4 years ago
leojm
I wish all the luck Pro. :D
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by ClassicRobert 4 years ago
ClassicRobert
china666RagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: FF, and Ragnar used sources. Ragnar formulated his arguments in a very clear way.
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 4 years ago
Lexicaholic
china666RagnarTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually argued a point, was not refuted, and made a convincing argument (maybe using semantics, but who can know when Pro doesn't respond?). Con takes everything except S&G, since that was at least equal.