Love the dog cont.

Rather than re editing my last post, I'll simply continue it here.

We've already established that what animals we eat and what animals we deem as companions is strictly a cultural preference. But there's still more to it than that.

The animals we choose as companions are not always strictly companions. When a horse gets too old to plow the fields or carry a rider, he is often eaten. It's not because we didn't care about him, or appreciate what he did for us, it's because we were in a situation where that horse could provide one last useful thing, even if it was only feeding us for a winter. Better we eat than scrounge to find food for us and him.

But why don't we eat dogs and cats when they get old and are no longer "useful"? As I stated previously, these animals aren't often chosen for food when they are considered companion animals because they are more useful alive, they don't require as much care as a horse, and they're certainly easier to dispose of when they've died. A hole for a dog is much smaller than a hole for a horse.

But you still have to remember that dogs are indeed a food source, even if it is on the other side of the world. They're bred solely for what they can provide in the way of food, rather than companionship (ever wonder where the word chow came from?) Several breeds were actually created because of their use as meat dogs, such as the now-extinct Hawaiian Poi.

As for someone who "politely" mentioned the fact that all animals are equal-why, yes, they are. There isn't a single companion animal who isn't considered a delicacy somewhere else, and there isn't a single food animal who isn't considered a pet somewhere else. All animals are equal to us, whether they're carrying us or feeding us. There is no real bias towards animals like that, only what location and conditions deemed necessary for us to survive.