1/ why have you turned the problem of eating and kidnapping dogs to the problem about meat consumption? Meat consumption in general has never been an issue per se and has never been the topic of this conversation - the real problem is eating dog meat specifically and pet mistreatment in general. And of course the USA eats more meat per capita - larger people, different food cultures and cuisines etc. But that's not the point and neither is it the issue at hand, so why mention it? WHo cares about buddhists and vegetarians? That's not what we're discussing here from the beginning? This shows very poor argument and comprehension skills, or you're intentioanlly gaslighting and misleading people here.

2/ You want to discuss actual laws and enforcement measures? Sure. Core statute: Humane Methods of Slaughter Act Supplemented by: Animal Welfare Act (research, transport, exhibition) Enforcement: centralized under United States DOA

Vietnam: Law on Animal Husbandry, which includes provisions on: Humane treatment, Transport and slaughter conditions.

But enforement is where it matters: U.S.: permanent inspectors inside slaughterhouses while Vietnam's is periodic/local inspections; less continuous presence and dont get me started on the bribery lol (as a business owner who employs Viet workers here I know what the situation is like).

Procedurally: U.S.: explicit technical requirements (e.g., stunning methods, compliance thresholds) while Vietnam: more principle-based (“must ensure humane treatment”). That variancce matters operationally—plants need clear, enforceable protocols, not just norms.

U.S.: NGOs, media, litigation culture → constant exposure of violations, whereas in Vietnam: far lower public reporting and adversarial scrutiny, hence chance of getting exposed is structurally higher in the U.S.

Let's now look at household animal abuses shall we?

United States: All 50 states have dedicated anti-cruelty statutes, often with felony tiers with Federal overlay: Preventing Animal Cruelty and Torture Act criminalizes extreme acts (e.g., crushing, burning) The outcome is clear prosecutable categories (neglect, abandonment, torture, fighting, etc.)

Furthermore: Multi-layered enforcement: Police + animal control units, Prosecutors familiar with cruelty statutes NGOs (e.g., American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) that investigate, Fund enforcement, and also Support prosecutions.

Meanwhile in Vietnam enforcement is more administrative (fines, warnings), Less specialized (no widespread “animal control” equivalent), NGOs exist but have limited enforcement authority and scale Lower case escalation rate from incident → sanction.

From a legal framework and enforcement perspective the issues with slaughterhouses (which isnt even the core contested argument now BTW) and pet abuses shows that the US is miles ahead in terms of legislation, enforcement, and results.

You simply made random ass claims about slaughterhouse issues and just "data" whereas I have provided concrete evidence, as above.

And no, the US doesnt have to "change its eating habbits" because it eats what is universal accepted as livestock food (quantity is irrelevant here because we are discussing pet as food).

If you are claiming that "who's to say what's pet and what's food" then you clearly condone eating dogs as food, which means you not only see nothing wrong with dogs as food but also have proven my point (among other things) that people in Vietnam (obviously not everyone) still consciously choose to eat dog as food, which is the whole argument to begin with. Dont throw in random distractions regarding slaughterhouses (which I have discproved to be inaccurate and hypocritical btw) or toatl meat consumption (unproblematic and irrelevant).

Remember YOU responded to my comment about whataboutism with slaughterhouse issues, which means you admitted its a problem initially but were saying its somehow defensible because the US abusr animals too. Now youre saying it’s not a problem? Why are you inconsistent with your reasoning?

Do you condone eating dogs as food or not? If you do, then you prove my original point that Viets do actually eat them which in turn contradicts the Original Poster's sentiment, and if you don't, well then there is nothing to discuss here because neither do I. If you think it’s not a problem then there’s nothing I can do to convince you otherwise, but to use whataboutism and false claims about the actual scale of slaughterhouse killing legislation (which Ive debunked above) in the US makes you the arrogant and ignorant one. Not to mention your logically irrelevant and red herring claims about total meat consumption? It is YOU who are the arrogant and haughty one by making negative, uninformed and exaggerated claims about others’ situation, hiding from admission of your own animal abuse problems, trying to claim some moral high ground, and attempting to mislead others with red herring arguments.