But I too draw the line at eating dogs and cats, except during extreme survival situations where it's eat your pet (or fellow human) to avoid starvation. I feel eating canids and felids as taboo as eating a primate, or eating a human.
By this argument and amount of places (not people), eating a primate might be less taboo than eating a canid or felid?
As an American, I feel the same cultural taboos and they’ve kept me from eating some things but I’ve been reconsidering. Horse and rabbit were delicious.
What about coyote or mountain lion though? Those are still but seldom eaten in America mostly by hunters.
Some people draw the line at not eating predators not because of cultural taboo but because of bio accumulation issues.
Fascinating ethnobiology and moral boundary discussion.
I cannot think of a land-dwelling meat-eating animal human routinely eat. We eat chicken, but they eat anything including rocks, and they're towards the bottom rank of good-tasting meats anyway.
It always interests me to consider just how relative taboos can be.
Only one country isn't it ?
Nepal’s population is 82 percent Hindu. This means many people from Nepal respect cows very much.
It is legal to eat beef in Nepal and many major hotels will serve it. However, it is illegal to kill a cow within the country.
Really, dogs, primates, and humans should be the only animals that are okay to eat.
Otherwise you're saying that it's okay to kill and eat thinking, feeling creatures as long as they're sufficiently different from yourself.
Plus, only humans can consent to being eaten— In theory, anyway, though I wouldn't want to see any system that claims it can actually respect that honestly.