There's a missing part in your reasoning. Why does a history of people understanding dogs imply that we shouldn't eat them? Should we never eat animals (or plan

There's a missing part in your reasoning. Why does a history of people understanding dogs imply that we shouldn't eat them? Should we never eat animals (or plants?) that people in many cultures and times could understand? What connects understanding and eating? Is it OK for other animals to eat them? Even if we feed the dogs to those other animals? Don't chickens fall into the same category as dogs? People everywhere live with them wandering around their house, then from time to time they eat one. Ignoring any other factors, would it be OK to eat a person or dog who had some brain damage so that nobody could understand the mood or intent of anything they communicated? Would it be OK for a person with an inability to understand dogs' (or people's) moods to eat them? What if a new breed of cow was developed that could get along with people the way dogs do. Would that elevate it to the status of being un-eatable, or not because it doesn't have the long history of people understanding it like dogs do? These might sound like snarky questions, but their answers would help paint a clearer picture of your idea which, as you've presented it, doesn't make sense to me. Personally, I wouldn't eat dog because I can imagine all the dogs I've met and feel some emotional connection with. But that's just my personal history. If I was the only one like that, I still wouldn't eat them. You seem to be saying that if you (or your culture) were the only person/culture who had dogs as pets, then you would be willing to eat dogs. You also implied that it's OK to kill humans ("no sympathy"). Is it OK to kill dogs too as long as we don't eat them?