I'm not sure how "it's okay in <country x>!" is really relevant, TBH.
There are plenty of places where it's not considered okay by a significant portion of the population, so it's a pretty valid to use it as an example of an inconsistency.
I'm not sure how "it's okay in <country x>!" is really relevant, TBH.
There are plenty of places where it's not considered okay by a significant portion of the population, so it's a pretty valid to use it as an example of an inconsistency.
You said eating pigs is ok, massive numbers of countries don’t have pork on the menu. You said eating beef is ok, yet go to India and try that
Your culture thinks eating horse is bad, other cultures it’s fine, but beef or pork is bad.
Even dog and cat are quite common in many countries.
It's an example of an inconsistency that people have when it comes to what they're willing to eat.
It does not have to be a universal truth.
Cultural bias is definitely relevant in a discussion about why people do or do not choose to hunt and/or eat specific meats.
The point of horses was an example of an inconsistency. Saying "I have a counter example" doesn't create a relevant discussion.
It doesn't make the horses example any less of an example of an inconsistency.
Edit: not only that but the whole point of me bringing up inconsistencies was to say that just because they exist doesn't mean people can't have ethical concerns about whaling (or other kinds of animal hunting / farming).