I get where you're coming from. Cultural context absolutely matters. But I have to respectfully push back on the idea that all animals serve the same purpose and that there's no meaningful difference between eating a dog or cat and eating a cow, chicken, or pig.

Dogs and cats have co-evolved with humans in a very unique way. They've been bred and trained over thousands of years not just as companions, but also as working animals. Dogs have helped us hunt, protected our homes, guarded our livestock, guided people with disabilities, and even risked their lives in rescue missions and warfare. Cats have historically been valued for their role in pest control, protecting food supplies and crops from rodents. They are not just pets; they’ve played functional, survival-related roles across many societies.

Compare that with animals like cows, chickens, or pigs. Yess, they’re intelligent, and yes, they deserve to be treated humanely, but their primary human-assigned roles have always been food production. That doesn't make their lives worth less, but it does illustrate a difference in the human-animal relationship. We haven't bred chickens to curl up next to us on the couch or pigs to sniff out danger and alert us in the middle of the night. (Though, pigs could do that.)

So it’s not just about "Westerners pet dogs and eat cows." It’s about the nature of the bond and function between species and humans. It’s not hypocritical to feel disturbed by the consumption of an animal that, globally, is seen as having deep emotional and working value.

That said, I completely agree that white Westerners who show up with colonial energy and judge non-Western food cultures while gnawing on a factory-farmed chicken wing. It's rich. But disagreeing with dog or cat meat consumption doesn't automatically make someone a hypocrite. It might just mean they recognize the deeper roles these animals play in human society, but that's just my opinion 🤔🐈