First, Voltaire said, "I don't agree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I can also say, "I don't eat dog meat, but I will defend your right to eat dog meat to the death."

Second, what is civilization. Civilization has little to do with eating dogs. China is not the only country that eats dog meat. On the contrary, I think it is really barbaric to let one civilization view suppress another with the scale of "civilization or barbarism". As far as I know, the Alaska government allows the Inuit to kill a certain number of whales in order to maintain the balance between the lifestyle of the local people and the endangered whale population, rather than a total ban. It is not civilization for the strong to assimilate the weak. People-oriented, harmony without difference is civilization. It is civilization to learn to respect talents before respecting dogs.

The original intention of animal protection in China is not bad, but some people have gone too far, and these people may have become the mainstream of animal protection organizations. For example, after the dog meat festival, dog lovers refused to inspect and quarantine their dogs and shipped them back to their hometown, believing that it was unnecessary. This kind of behavior not only belongs to the logical error of "I can do it, what you do is wrong", but also violates the law. Moreover, the rescued dogs were not treated well, and many dogs died in the activists' cars.

What's more, social science terms such as "civilization", "barbarism" and "civilized barbarism" can't be defined casually by you dogs, so this is simply forcing others to accept their own ideas. I'm afraid this compulsion is really barbaric, naive and boring.