system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: There is nothing wrong with other cultures eating animals we domesticate. E.g. asia eating dogs.

Obligatory, For the purposes of this post I will predominantly use the example of dogs being eaten in asia because It is subjectively the most widespread and emotional example.

In the same way that we breed and hold livestock in pens to be slaughtered and eaten on a mass scale there is nothing wrong with the same thing being done to cats or dogs. I see this come up a lot, the notion that chinese culture is ethically skewed because they eat dogs. This is fundamentally no different to you eating a cow. If you're disgruntled by the notion then it is an internal issue with yourself and your ethics more so then it is with another culture.

In this case I believe that it is wrong to superimposed our western ethics on other cultures.

I believe that it is taboo because we have, as a culture bread and domesticated Canis for agriculture, hunting and companionship. Likewise other religions may have developed sacred connections to pigs, cows etc. They have no right to infringe on what we believe and nor do we them.

I do not know the popularity of this perspective, wit I welcome criticism, healthy debate and hope to reach a common understanding.

EDIT 1:
I feel compelled to make this clear, not everyone in asia actively participates in the example I have used, in fact in recent years it has become far more taboo. However like I stated this is the most emotive example of cultural differences between the east and west and subsequently the most effective in initiating debate.

EDIT 2:
My opinion had been skewed, I appreciate the effort and time you all have put into your comments.
The rationalisation is that dogs, like cats are working animals, they have been bred to work and provide companionship, and therefore to eat them, would be inefficient. I think that is the route for the argument againsed eating dogs, at least in this isolated example I can appriciate that logic. However I do not believe that it is fundamentally too dissimilar to eating any other animal, if the argument is purely one of efficiency then we would only farm and eat genetically engineered lumps of muscle. We dont. We have an entire pallet of meats and foods, and therefore upon that basis I do not believe that the west can claim any sort of moral high ground. 
Subsequently, my opinion on the matter had been expertly debated, but still holds. 

I'm not debating wether eating meat is right or wrong, I'm debating wether eating meats in the west is any different to the meats in the east.
gpt
(I am arguing through the utilitarian/harm-reduction axiom: the most ethical action will most greatly increase net happiness and decrease net suffering)

In Indian culture, an even more restrictive set of axioms exists. Beef consumption and cow slaughter are (rightfully) taboo, and other meat consumption and animal slaughter are (rightfully) discouraged. So it's not even universally acceptable to eat beef.

&#x200B;

>In the same way that we breed and hold livestock in pens to be slaughtered and eaten on a mass scale there is nothing wrong with the same thing being done to cats or dogs.

Sure, eating cats or dogs is no *worse* than eating Western livestock, but it is still an unethical act. You use a false premise (depending on your axioms): it is ethical to slaughter and consume sentient animals. This is unethical as the total happiness gained from slaughtering and consuming another sentient animal will not exceed the total suffering as a result, except for life-death situation, food shortage, etc. (which is highly uncommon in a modern context).

Western cultural norms do not justify the slaughter of Western livestock (especially in current factory farm environments), therefore they do not justify the slaughter of other sentient animals.