EDITORIAL, STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
Why Congress Should Not Ban Cat and Dog Meat
By Joe Jarvis - June 27, 2017

Finally, Congress is doing something about a serious issue on everyone’s mind; they have introduced a bill to ban dog and cat meat from being sold and eaten in the United States.

But wait, isn’t this cultural insensitivity towards those from countries who regularly eat dogs and cats?

China is still the most likely country to see dog or cat meat eaten, even hosting a dog meat festival every year. But lately, the festival has been subjected to protests from people who think the practice of slaughtering dogs for meat is inhumane. Some of the pressure to stop the practice has come from the West, but there are also elements within China who think it is wrong to eat animals regularly kept as pets.

I’m only half kidding about the cultural differences. In Australia, they eat kangaroos, in Iceland, they eat horses, and all over rabbits are regularly consumed. Is America’s culture so superior that we know for certain we have found the right combination of animals to slaughter for meat? Or is culture an appropriate issue to legislate, enshrining the “American way of life” into law?

“We live in a global economy and we live in a very transient society,” [Wayne Pacelle, President of the Humane Society] said. “We need to be morally consistent and ask other countries to act in a way that is consistent with our own policies.”

Apparently, America should force the world to align with its cultural standards for meat consumption.

It is fine to be against the practice of eating cats and dogs, just as many also protest eating pigs, cows, or any other animal not commonly kept as a pet. But this is still ultimately an opinion. It would actually make more logically consistent sense to be for or against the eating of all animals, or none.

But then many people draw a line based on the intelligence of the animal. This means dolphins and chimpanzees are clearly off limits, while fish and chicken are good for munching. But what about those confusing middle ones? Some evidence suggests pigs are smarter than dogs. Can we really say a cat has more intelligence than a cow, or do they simply have more personality–a subjective value judgment?

In America, if someone is eating cats and dogs, that is probably a sign that they are in desperate need, and hungry. So the only people that would be ensnared by such a law would be the extremely poor, those with different cultures, or the mentally ill.

When we treat cats and dogs as property, that means it is already illegal to steal, kill, or eat someone’s family pet. This is not the issue. Nor is the issue if the cat or dog meat shows up on your plate in a restaurant instead of beef; that would clearly be fraud, and whether you agree with the laws or not, would violate meat processing standards. So all the ways in which the eating of cat and dog meat harms more than your emotions are already illegal.

Arbitrary issues like these should not be decided by governments. Otherwise, there is nothing to stop a dominant faction from subjectively banning the slaughter of their favorite animal, as many Indian states have done when it comes to cows.

It is not for governments to make this judgment, it is absolutely up to individuals, and the market. If no one is buying dog meat, then no one will be selling it.

In fact, a larger issue in more urgent need of redress is the cruelty with which common meat animals are treated. In these cases, the government is complicit through their protectionist regulations and false assurances that they are keeping an eye on the processes.

But seriously, how big of a  problem is this really? As cute as they are, shouldn’t people have the freedom to eat cats and dogs if they want? Even though I personally love cats and dogs, and would never want to eat one, I’m not seeing more than a cultural or emotional difference between cows and pigs, versus cats and dogs being eaten.

Bills like this are indicative of a larger political problem; no one is addressing real issues. The politicians introduce bills that make people emotional but don’t really matter significantly. The USA could collapse from the debt of almost $20 trillion, but let’s make sure no one is eating cats and dogs.

America bombs and wages war on entire regions of the globe, with disregard for human lives lost. The hungry innocent victims left in grinding poverty without a home would surely jump at the chance to eat a stray cat or dog, while the politicians who caused their turmoil sit safely in Washington talking from their pedestal about the inhumanity of eating cats and dogs.

If–or when–the dollar crashes and the policies of the U.S. government plunge the world into economic turmoil, we may be singing a different tune on how yummy Mr. Kitty looks.

 

Tagged with: , , , , ,
Posted in EDITORIAL, STAFF NEWS & ANALYSIS
  • Weihan Xingqi

    RIDICULOUS arguments! The author has made himself an enemy of likely EVERY pet owner in the world. Despicable.

    • Kim

      I’m a pet owner. I agree with him completely and he is no enemy of mine.

      • Thank you Kim! I think most people understand this argument is not pro-pet-eating.

  • Rosicrucian32

    People already are eating Fido and Kitty. They just don’t know it…………

    • jackw97224

      Heh, heh, heh…Oh, say it ain’t so, Joe!

  • Sam Fox

    Congress needs to quit over reaching. They have no right or authority to tell anyone what to eat.

    Weihan, how many people do you know that are actually going to eat their pet cat or dog? I don’t know any one either.

    Congress has more compassion for dogs & cats than the millions of dead children that Planned ‘Parenthood’ churns out every year. These clowns need to quit the jive & get behind the Trump agenda. If the agenda doesn’t work out because Mr.T didn’t try, then we have a case. If Congress works with Mr. T to implement the agenda & it works out, we will ALL be better off & won’t have to worry about having meat to eat.

    %$^$#@@)$!! politicians!!!!

    SamFox

  • jackw97224

    Yes, the lunacy of political government is evident in this cat and dog pony show. If it were raining “cats and dogs” there would be a commie/socialist Demoncrat asserting that this is free meat sanctioned by government. It is evident the gd politicians don’t grasp the importance of setting priorities and then dealing with the top 3 before venturing into the lesser stupid ideas. Thomas Sowell said it so well, The question is not what is best but who shall decide what is best. Politics is violence and we would be better off trying organizational government based on voluntary contracts.

  • jackw97224

    Politics is violence. Voting is an act of violence as it sanctions the politicians to make “laws” that abridge the freedom to choose of those who disagree with you. Oh, and then the politicians charge overseers to use force against those who refuse to “go along” or who don’t pass the tests or rules. Voting is immoral.

  • jackw97224

    If we all need to get along, then we all need to respect the other fella’s freedom to choose. Imagine how the Civil War would not have happened if Lincoln had respected the southern states and their right to withdraw from the union. I didn’t say slavery was right, so don’t get your panties in a bunch. Lincoln rejected the very first paragraph of The Declaration of Independence and for that he should have been removed from office and in fact he was but only after he had caused the slaughters of nearly a million Americans. He could have avoided the carnage of the Civil War and then just watched as morality and the Industrial Revolution took over so as to bring slavery to an end without all the animosity and long lasting angers. Most people don’t even know that Lincoln had not right to force any state to remain in the Union. Most people don’t know that at least 3 states had included the freedom to secede in their ratification documents. How could anyone know? Do government schools teach this simple truth? No! Does the MSM teach this simple truth? No! Do politicians speak this simple truth? No! Why? Easy. They have a conflict of interest; they slop-at-the-trough, suck-at-the-golden-teat of the loot A to satisfy B taxes and dare not do or say anything that would jeopardize the booty. So, voting is an act of violence as it sanctions the use of political power to harm others.

    • Mstrjack

      Good grief!

      How anyone can believe that the Southern Confederacy was right in cheating the 1860 election, throwing a fit, revolting while calling it secession, shooting at the Star of the West whilst Buchanan was president, forming a powerful central government from December to March (Three Months!!) … and as their very first official act bombing a Union fort and then blaming Abraham Lincoln for a war that was started before he was elected and predicted before he was even born. Wow! What a whopper!

      Secession is a peaceful act. The South revolted, lost, and still cry about it for 150 years. They should have tried living in peace instead of cheating, stealing, shooting, and blowing things up.

      • jackw97224

        OK, get a grip. You are introducing all sorts of logical fallacies. I didn’;t say I approved of any wrongdoings. The colonists revolted against the tyranny of the English. They made it clear that they had the right to withdraw from that tyranny in the very first paragraph of The Declaration of Independence. They had no intent of reimposing a tyranny of their own central government. The constitution did not impose any such tyranny. The southern states were merely reprising what had been stated not too many years earlier. The colonist never did and never would have sanctioned the use of violence by any group of states to prevent any state from going its way if it determined the central government had embarked on the use of violence that was aggressive, as opposed to defensive. The legal experts told Lincoln that the constitution did not sanction the use of violence to prevent a state or states from seceding.

        Lincoln provoked the southern states by threatening violence. If secession was to be peaceful, then Lincoln would not have so threatened the use of violence. Threats eventually lead to retaliation and Lincoln knew he was pushing the southern states to the edge and they would retaliate. Same happened when Wilson provoked Germany and then when FDR provoked Japan and Germany. Indeed, Lincoln could have followed Winfield Scott’s recommendation: Wayward sisters, depart in peace. Oh, and nearly a million Americans would have lived and their contributions would have added to the qualities of life for millions of Americans. Oh, and all that wasted money on munitions and the time wasted to process war materials could have gone to all sorts of wonderful development. How many genius inventions were missed because men were killed on the battlefield abattoirs?

        • Mstrjack

          Lincoln did not provoke the war. He never liked war and did not prepare for war. All he did was send supplies to his troops who were being held in siege in a Union fort that had been deeded to the Union years earlier by South Carolina and built with Union money. Holding Union troops in siege was an act of war and so was shooting at the Star of the West in January 1861. President Buchanan should have crushed the rebellion early on but he left it all to Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was duty bound to support his troops and that’s what he did. He swore an oath and kept his word.

          The Southerners had only one reason to bomb the fort and that was to wage war. The South had been building for war for nearly a year and had left the Union treasury empty when Lincoln took office. They left the Army scattered out West and the Navy had been sent to foreign waters. Lincoln was not prepared for war.

          While the Confederate Army was bombing Fort Sumter the Confederate Secretary of War, Leroy Walker, predicted that the Confederate Army would take Washington by May 1st. Was Lincoln supposed to ignore that threat? Well, he didn’t. The Southerners were the aggressors and no amount of rewriting history can change that fact.

          It is crazy for libertarians to support the Southern Confederate government and their actions. The Confederates were only interested in “liberty for me but not for thee!” The top 1% Slave Owners.

  • Mstrjack

    You are absolutely right Joe. Government has no business telling us what to eat. A ban on eating anything is just like a ban on drugs. Government, by banning eating things, is essentially saying that they claim the right to assault, kidnap, cage you and feed you their slop instead of a tasty barbecued Fido. Government bans suck.

  • Captain Turk

    Well-reasoned Joe. When the coming derivative-led crash is triggered (and it will start in Germany) the .GOV will ALSO be telling people which grasses and wild plants and weeds are edible. (Find a book for your own country or region today. There are many available.) This government advice is already common in many poorer countries, including Cuba. Pets (and even horses and zoo animals) regularly go missing in famine-ravaged countries during a currency / food crisis (They go together). A famine is one of the most dehumanizing influences known to mankind. Learn this! The responses and behavior of a hungry population contain elements of hysteria and criminal insanity. It can be terrifying because you can trust nobody. A global famine IS absolutely coming, and EVERY western family needs to have intelligently-planned food reserves available NOW. Proteins and fats are essential. Carbs come next. Do not ignore my warning. Do not stack metals until you have stacked tins and sacks. You will need both. Time is VERY short.

    • Great point, you can’t eat gold. Foraging is a great hobby which could turn into a lifesaving skill in an instant

  • georgesilver

    While you’re at it… why not stand up for the rights of cannibals? Why shouldn’t they be able to tuck into a nice missionary or better still a politician whenever they feel the munchies coming on. Humans are animals so why can’t they be included.

    Note: These are not my thoughts. I’m just taking dictation from Hannibal Lecter.

  • georgesilver

    Wouldn’t it be ironic if our planet Earth was just one of many vast farms in the galaxy for producing humans as a food source for our neighbours. They would eventually know we were ripe for harvesting when we had the technology to broadcast our existence.

    • Praetor

      It’s a cookbook.!!!:)

  • Wilhelm

    It’s all about precedent. Congress is to ban the eating of pets first, then it becomes easier to get a law to ban the eating of horses, and gradually work toward a ban on veal and then lamb, and someday to all so-called ‘meat animals.’ Virtually no one eats cats in the US so why suddenly ban what isn’t an issue? For precedent!!

    • Praetor

      Tell the DC crowd, we are cutting off you’re Top Sirloin steak while you are down at the local drinking hole. Tell them they are eating our pets. See how they like that.!!!

  • Praetor

    Well, of course government should get the h/ll out of peoples lives. If you are keeping chickens pigs sheep cows rabbits you name it, you are feeding watering them, paying a vet to look after them, vaccination, watch them give birth, you are kind of eating you’re pets. I just think dogs cats and horses to some extent are smarter than the rest. They saw that humans will eat anything, even each other if they are really really hungry, starving to death. Befriending the humans and showing they have utility. might just keep them of the dinner plate. Of course government should get out of our lives.!!!

loading