In North America, the taboo associated with the consumption of dog meat is logically unreasonable

I initially did not take this; however due to forum request I'm accepting the challenge. Definitions (I'm not trying for semantics, nor am I the instigator, thus pro may propose alternatives):From the Merriam-Webster dictionaryLogic is "interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable" [1]. Taboos are "banned on grounds of morality or taste" [2]. Unreasonable is "not conformable to reason: absurd" [3]. Absurd (directed from unreasonable) is "having no rational or orderly relationship to human life" [4]. Arguments:First there's the obvious outcry arguments: dogs are loyal, cute, there's health risks, etc. (if you're bored check source [5]). On the basis that these could all be rightly applied to currently harvested animals, and the resolution is not about going vegetation, these points are too low in relevance for more than this honorable mention. Second there's the simple reality: In America there is a socially constructed stigma, which has been enhanced by visible cruelty to animals. Dog fights, puppy mills, on so on. Vile acts against them have resulted in protection laws against eating deceased ones in 6 states (according to The Wallstreet Journal [6]), and there's an ongoing battle in Hawaii to ban it [7], perhaps to protect tourism as they are already scalded for being in the 5 worst states in enforcement of animal protection laws [8]. Even the slaughter of livestock is done behind closed doors, with lobbyists making it illegal for animal rights groups to sneak cameras in. Basically it boils down to socially constructed moral values, and a line in the sand; perhaps due to where the slaughter would take place. It is logical that we have these sets of moral values, as it's the conclusion of how we have socially engineered ourselves. It is reasonable, as within North America it is tied to the orderly relationships of human life, consider the sight of service animals which are most visibly dogs. Rebuttals (will overlap with the above, but I'll limit how much I repeat myself): Why are dogs different? First because we ethically and legally define them as being different. Second because of how easy they are to reshape quickly, and the hobby/profession that has risen to tailoring them as pets and as incredibly valuable tools (aid animals, bomb sniffers, police, etc. [8]). They are only defined as mankind's best friend through their popularity as a family pet in North American culture. True, yet that makes the taboo quite reasonable to have in North America (granted it remains a taboo, but one that is reasonable to have). A cow could be held in the exact same social prestige as a dog if it underwent the specific cultural and social relationships with humans throughout history that the dog did. True, and in some parts of the world cows are protected. However in North America it is the dog (and other pets) to which humans have a sense of shared history and companionship with. It['s] logically incorrect to declaim those we eat dog meat as "monsters" or "moral abominations" or even "gross. "If raised to believe something is wrong, it's perfectly logical to hold onto that belief; doubly so when other meat is available at lower prices. Further, I don't see how people in other parts of the world are actually suffering for not conforming to the North American cultural expectations. It's just North Americas (and perhaps some other countries) being a little odd when they travel. Sources:[1] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[2] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[4] . http://www.merriam-webster.com...[5] . http://www.petloverscompanion.com...[6] . http://online.wsj.com...[7] . http://www.hawaiinewsnow.com...[8] . http://channel.nationalgeographic.com...