How does this happen?

[Explicit]

yes, but i'd still eat it for food.

The animal in question would become a part of your family, much like how a newborn baby sister, for example, would.  Are you saying you would eat her, too?

[Hitmen]

The animal in question would become a part of your family, much like how a newborn baby sister, for example, would.  Are you saying you would eat her, too?

No, stupid, you don't eat babies, they don't have enough meat on them. You have to wait until they're older.

[hismajesty]

Hitmen, I seem to recall you saying how great eating babies was.

-----

This family my aunt knows in middleish-Virginia is poor, and like 5 years ago or so they ate their dog apparently. My friend has a pet duck too, but I don't think his family is going to eat it.

[Explicit]

The animal in question would become a part of your family, much like how a newborn baby sister, for example, would. Are you saying you would eat her, too?

No, stupid, you don't eat babies, they don't have enough meat on them. You have to wait until they're older.

[Rule]

This family my aunt knows in middleish-Virginia is poor, and like 5 years ago or so they ate their dog apparently.

That is horrible/ridiculous/stupid.  Regardless of how poor they are, there are programs in place so that they won't starve -- it is totally unnecessary to eat a family pet for those reasons.

[iago]

They're both dumb animals who probably taste good. 

That is utterly untrue.  Many dogs are highly intelligent (I'd say far more aware of their surroundings and capable of certain types of problem solving than a significant number of humans). 

Also, pigs aren't "dumb" -- this is a trivial observation if you know anything about wild boars.

All right, they're both smart animals.  That proves my point even better

[CrAz3D]

Aren't dogs more adaptable to human life though?

[iago]

So whether or not we should eat an animal should be based on how adaptable they are?  That doesn't seem like much of a criterian..

[Rule]

All right, they're both smart animals.  That proves my point even better

I think your point makes sense, I wasn't trying to argue with it -- just had to clear up that neither of those animals are dumb.  However, I'd say dogs are, on average, considerably smarter than pigs.   

[CrAz3D]

Aren't dogs more trainable?  They're certainly more physically capable than pigs.

[Adron]

So whether or not we should eat an animal should be based on how adaptable they are?  That doesn't seem like much of a criterian..

In a way, it does. Animals whose meat is hardly useful, maybe only to cook soup, may not be that great to eat. On the other hand, an animal with fine, tender meat, that can be cooked in any way and still taste great, would make a great meat animal.

[Topaz]

I like my bacon.

[iago]

So whether or not we should eat an animal should be based on how adaptable they are?  That doesn't seem like much of a criterian..

In a way, it does. Animals whose meat is hardly useful, maybe only to cook soup, may not be that great to eat. On the other hand, an animal with fine, tender meat, that can be cooked in any way and still taste great, would make a great meat animal.

Well, I didnt' mean adaptable to being put into soup, I don't think that was the context anyway

[Adron]

In a way, it does. Animals whose meat is hardly useful, maybe only to cook soup, may not be that great to eat. On the other hand, an animal with fine, tender meat, that can be cooked in any way and still taste great, would make a great meat animal.

Well, I didnt' mean adaptable to being put into soup, I don't think that was the context anyway

But when you think about it, it is a long term adaptation. Animals whose meat do not taste well survive in the wild until we cut down their forests. Animals whose meat is great are domesticated and bred and multiply. It is evolution...

[iago]

In a way, it does. Animals whose meat is hardly useful, maybe only to cook soup, may not be that great to eat. On the other hand, an animal with fine, tender meat, that can be cooked in any way and still taste great, would make a great meat animal.

Well, I didnt' mean adaptable to being put into soup, I don't think that was the context anyway

But when you think about it, it is a long term adaptation. Animals whose meat do not taste well survive in the wild until we cut down their forests. Animals whose meat is great are domesticated and bred and multiply. It is evolution...

Haha, that's funny in a way, but true, too.  I don't think evolution ever intended good tasting animals to be bred in captivity though