Would you supersize my doggie burger? (6/25/08)
Scott Waldyn
Issue date: 7/2/08 Section: Opinion
I have one simple question to ask: Why is it not socially acceptable to eat a cat or dog? Let's cut out the emotional bond nonsense right off the bat and say this cat or dog is straight from the pound. The ravenous devourer has had little contact with the animal and has no emotional connections to the creature. Even with this lack of bonding, for some reason, diving into a char-broiled Shih Tzu burger is generally frowned upon. Even with cheese. Why is that? Why do most people flash a look of disgust and shame at this idea?
Depending on where shoppers buy their meat from, the origins of that steak could be just as disgusting. Have you ever wondered how most cows, pigs and chickens get processed? To say the least, the journey is sickening. It's not just that the chickens are crammed in small living spaces or that the animals are beaten (some animals being beaten to death humanely with metal rods), but many other afflictions plague these animals as well. Balancing on which corporation is overseeing the process, cutbacks on the animal's final meal may give it the option of either animal feces or ground pieces of its brethren. On the bright side, this usually increases the profit margin some, and shareholders could possibly find a positive there, as could chief executives.
Other afflictions could include painful, festering wounds, tumors and all sorts of fun organisms running rampant inside a slaughterhouse prisoner's body. Yet, this isn't the point. This article isn't meant to sway someone to go vegetarian. That's a personal decision, and besides, pesticides and herbicides are the cancerous goodies that plague that side of the spectrum.
All this information about the treatment of animals is available in the form of documentaries, books, journals and articles by a variety of different researchers - ones with and without group affiliations, as well as information about the toxins in plants. As stated earlier though, this isn't the point. The point winds back up to the question I asked in the beginning: Why isn't it socially acceptable to eat a cat or a dog?
Depending on where shoppers buy their meat from, the origins of that steak could be just as disgusting. Have you ever wondered how most cows, pigs and chickens get processed? To say the least, the journey is sickening. It's not just that the chickens are crammed in small living spaces or that the animals are beaten (some animals being beaten to death humanely with metal rods), but many other afflictions plague these animals as well. Balancing on which corporation is overseeing the process, cutbacks on the animal's final meal may give it the option of either animal feces or ground pieces of its brethren. On the bright side, this usually increases the profit margin some, and shareholders could possibly find a positive there, as could chief executives.
Other afflictions could include painful, festering wounds, tumors and all sorts of fun organisms running rampant inside a slaughterhouse prisoner's body. Yet, this isn't the point. This article isn't meant to sway someone to go vegetarian. That's a personal decision, and besides, pesticides and herbicides are the cancerous goodies that plague that side of the spectrum.
All this information about the treatment of animals is available in the form of documentaries, books, journals and articles by a variety of different researchers - ones with and without group affiliations, as well as information about the toxins in plants. As stated earlier though, this isn't the point. The point winds back up to the question I asked in the beginning: Why isn't it socially acceptable to eat a cat or a dog?
Be the first to comment on this story