Prompt 3 Gordon

In this chapter of Thank You For Arguing the author explains how one should not show their bias towards one side or another when they are arguing.  In Eating Animals, Foer talks about dogs and his dog a lot.  He begins with reminiscing in how he used to hate dogs.  It seems at first like he is going against the rules in thank you for arguing because he is clearly taking the side of hating dogs.  I was surprised to see how Foer went in to explaining how his feeling about dogs had since changed.  He did exactly what TYFA said to do and he took a mutual standpoint, and proved he understood both sides of the argument.  This built his credibility in my mind and made me respect him as an author.  The chapter of Eating Animals continues on to how dogs are viewed in society.  For us in the United States it would be outrageous if someone wanted to eat dog for dinner! Yet in other parts of the world this is considered normal and happens very often.  I could never imagine eating a dog, an animal we keep as domesticated, but then Foer brigs up the idea of eating fish.  Is that the same? Can eating these two even compare?   I don’t think it is a completely valid argument to compare eating a dog and eating a fish.  We form relationships with dogs because we can touch and love them, we can’t do the same with a fish, we can admire their entertainment of swimming around but there is no feeling of endearment to a fish.