However I feel that maybe the cultures do have some backbone to the reasoning.
A big picture that may pop into your head is that of George Orwell’s Animal Farm (not looking at the historical significance) or the little pig Wilbur in Charlotte’s Web. These barnyard animals that are just walking meat in reality were given personalities in the novels. When the creatures came to the knowing that they might be butchered or sold off, there was an uprising to save them. When the animals died – many readers/watchers felt sympathetic or may have “teared-up” (I cried). We all wanted them to live a happy life as long as possible. However, like mentioned earlier – these personalities aren’t prevalent in reality. Cows just moo, and chickens just cluck. However, dogs – now dogs do have a prevalent personality. They lick, whimper, cuddle, play, and provide companionship to many. Others may view horses to have quite a soft, beautiful personality. So personality hits a nerve in our brains to cherish, not eat.
A further reason we may eat certain animals and not others may stem from the original usefulness otherwise. The entire reason horses were brought to
Also, what we eat typically tastes good to most. Supposedly, horse meat is very strained and not one slab but very fibril - and to many, not very tasty. Milk cows also typically do not taste as good as meat cows. Dog is quite revolting to some.
Some feel that we should not eat any meat at all, and some want it to rip apart every living creature and take a big bite. So, there has to be a line drawn to compromise. This is probably the main reason the House rejected spending money on horse-slaughterhouses: they are answering to many of their constituents whom desire the line to be drawn after cows. Think about it, without a boundary, we (humans) might be edible to…!