Your comment about there being a dividing line is only restating "pigs are food, dogs and cats are pets" rather than offering a rationalization for why this is the case. Sure, there is a dividing line, but why is there a dividing line? What makes the parakeet so different from the chicken, the cat from the cow?
I'm familiar with the changing public opinion, but shifting public opinion does not constitute a rational basis. I assume that you would not approve of eating dogs if the practice was increasing in popularity. I also know that people don't keep nureongi as pets, but I'm not sure why you brought it up. Are suggesting that because they are specifically bred for slaughter this makes them OK to eat?
From my perspective I see a group of people trying to force their views on others. I'm intimately familiar with this story because I've seen it in many different forms. For example, for years my father and many of my friends did not have the right to marry in the US because of people just like you. Many justifications for this bigotry were offered, but in the end it all boiled down to "it makes me uncomfortable."
So, what's the rationale for why eating pigs is OK but eating cats and dogs is off limits? Is it just personal discomfort? Help me understand.
> I'm familiar with the changing public opinion, but shifting public opinion does not constitute a rational basis.
It often does. The Supreme Court will refuse to hear cases that it thinks should be decided by a political process. Politics is the process by which public opinion becomes law.
Whether the belief is dying out or gaining acceptance is not a rational answer to the question of why people hold the belief. So again, is grouping pigs and dogs into the respective groups of meal and pet anything other than an arbitrary distinction?
Oh, I wasn't intending to comment on the discussion you were having with the GP, just to point out a small flaw in reasoning.
But since you asked, no, it does seem rather arbitrary. I'm not sure where you wanted to go with that argument. I would not eat dog, but I happily eat pork. I don't have a rational explanation for why, but neither do I care enough about it to want to try to change it.
If I did, I would probably go in the direction of eating dog rather than to stop eating meat entirely. It would not take much to push me in that direction. A few weeks in Korea might be enough for me to get over it.
I'm familiar with the changing public opinion, but shifting public opinion does not constitute a rational basis. I assume that you would not approve of eating dogs if the practice was increasing in popularity. I also know that people don't keep nureongi as pets, but I'm not sure why you brought it up. Are suggesting that because they are specifically bred for slaughter this makes them OK to eat?
From my perspective I see a group of people trying to force their views on others. I'm intimately familiar with this story because I've seen it in many different forms. For example, for years my father and many of my friends did not have the right to marry in the US because of people just like you. Many justifications for this bigotry were offered, but in the end it all boiled down to "it makes me uncomfortable."
So, what's the rationale for why eating pigs is OK but eating cats and dogs is off limits? Is it just personal discomfort? Help me understand.