Quote:
Originally Posted by ColesMommy01  [/B]
Eloquent as in what I was thinking was "what they do in their culture is essentially their business as long as they're not hurting anyone". That's what I was thinking. I happen to think tphan put it better than I would have. I don't see how that's a problem whether or not you agree/disagree with it. If they skin their meat source alive, yes I happen to think that's wrong. Using dogs as a source of meat? I wouldn't eat it, but I don't believe it's my business to tell someone they can't eat dog, goat, sheep, frogs but can eat cow, pig, and fish. Now I'm done for the day because although I'm against animal torture of any kind, I'm not one to be disgusted with someone's culture because I wasn't raised in it. |
Screw it. Animal torture of any kind is wrong in my book, but I can't knock someone for what they choose to eat if their meat is acquired through humane(whatever that means to people) means. I grew up in a culture where certain foods are seen as "exotic" or "disgusting" by people who didn't even try to take a second to learn about it. We eat goat, guinea pigs, frogs, etc. Granted we don't skin them alive, but we also eat lobster, crab, and crawdads which we boil alive(they die very quickly). I think a crawdad is on a completely different level than a dog, but there are some who don't and woud damn me to hell for eating them and that's their prerogative. Or there's people who think any animal is considered a meat source and will eat anything. Different strokes, different folks. Animal torture =bad, what animal(s) you eat is your business. Hopefully no one will take anything I've written out of context.