The thing is to me I see, but could be wrong which is why I’m making a historical inquiry as to who got this rolling, two forces here at work, one good one evil: one is the power of care for an animal’s wellbeing which is good, but the other is the power of a western dominating norm to dictate how everyone should think and how strong it is its effect. There is no objective difference between the specific act of eating a dog for meat and eating a pig for meat and people keep Pigs as pets sometimes too. Except one is not approved by a western norm and the other is. Actually what bothers me so much about the latter is not really this one instance. But rather because if it can affect that one thing what _else_ can it affect? The problem also, again, isn’t even if another culture chooses to _voluntarily_ adopt something from outside. The problem is the power of the outsider to _dictate_ those changes. It’s good if animal cruelty is stopped, it’s bad if humanity’s entire thinking becomes limited to a single stream of thought known as European liberal culture. That’s like a person who can only think in one way. The fact that it is approached by that outsider, not merely as I hate the cruel method to obtain the dog meat, but rather _let’s ban eating it altogether_ is problematic unless they’re as I said hard vegan against _ALL_ animal meat eating because then it’s all treated on an equal footing, suggests — IF the assumption I just made there is right and it could be wrong — that there is a culture/worldview dynamic going on that is unhealthy for the human species. Like I said, no problem with attacking method, AND also no problem if it were the Chinese who were the ones to first decide this bit of culture should be removed. I want to make sure that it’s very clear that I am putting this out tentatively and rebuttably; as I could be wrong. I’m just pointing out what I _seem_ to see and voicing what imo is an important concern.