"North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has ordered pet dogs to be confiscated in the country’s capital, saying the pooches represent Western 'decadence'..."

"Kim issued the directive in July to round up the pets, claiming they were part of 'a "tainted" trend by bourgeouis [sic] ideology,’' a source told the English edition of Chosun Ilbo, a South Korean newspaper. 'Ordinary people raise pigs and livestock on their porches, but high-ranking officials and the wealthy own pet dogs, which stoked some resentment' among the lower classes, the source said. 'Authorities have identified households with pet dogs and are forcing them to give them up or forcefully confiscating them and putting them down.' But while the oppressive regime says the move is to clamp down on capitalist extravagance in Pyongyang, the dog owners are fearful that given North Korea’s food shortage — and propensity for eating dog meat — the directive has only come about to feed the masses."

The NY Post reports.

It does stoke resentment if the wealthy are keeping pet animals, which must be fed, and the masses of people are hungry. If you are going to ban the pets because of this and confiscate them and kill them, what is the ethical argument for not using the meat?