Much has been made of the supposed 'unique' characteristics of dog domestication. Before you subscribe lock, stock and barrel to these doe-eyed arguments, you should read up on the domestication of the rest of the animals we have around us. The fundamental bottom line in all cases of domestication is compatibility with humans. If you can't achieve this, you are done with that animal. Humans have tried to domesticate pretty much every animal in the animal kingdom, with varying degrees of success. Zebras are a perfect example. Horses, donkeys, even camels have been domesticated, but due to the irascible temperament of zebras, they have been extremely resistant to domestication. Rhinos, hippos, large cats like tigers and lions and other carnivores, peccaries, American bison, etc. etc., are other examples of generally undomesticable species despite persistent attempts over the last several thousand years. Their 'wildness' simply could not be bred out of them. A great discourse taking up an entire chapter on exactly this topic can be found in a book called Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond. Pretty much everyone should read this book, BTW.

The supposed loyalty and trust of dogs is bred into them as they are bred into all domesticated animals. The alleged "unique" loyalty and trust of dogs is romanticized by people such as yourself but never proven to be either unique to dogs or as romantic as you portray. Horses and even camels have shown extreme loyalty to their owners but don't receive the same amount of fawning that dogs do because they're not as cute and cuddly. BTW, if you don't realize this by now, sentiment and emotion have no place in a logical, cold-hard-facts discussion, something that people who slobber over dogs like grigori cannot seem to keep separate.

"Dogs have also been used to rescue people in disasters such as earthquakes, avalanches or other natural calamities. Dogs are used to cheer up sick and elderly people as Canine Doctors. What about Seeing Eye Dogs that help blind people? Can a cow, a pig, a chicken or a duck do the same thing?"

This means what, exactly? We can train monkeys and chimps to do the same things, but what exactly about the activities that animals have been trained to perform make it immoral to eat them? If I train a pig to sniff out mines on a battlefield or plastique in a suitcase, does that somehow invalidate my desire to consume bacon? There is nothing wrong with being attached to a specific dog, such as your own pet, or your animal helper or canine doctor, or blind-eye dog. If you feel the desire to protect that animal and develop attachments to it, that is perfectly understandable and no one would question it. But you and grigori make far more grandiose claims than this, don't you? You claim that because some dogs are trained to do some things, that therefore ALL dogs deserve the credit and cannot be eaten without committing some kind of sin. Well what if some dogs cannot perform ANY of the activities you cite? What if some dogs are bred purely for their meat? Would you be ok with their consumption? If not, and I suspect neither you nor grigori would be ok with it, then the true underlying objection is NOT based on their level of 'training', but the mere act of dog consumption itself. Which means all your other arguments are just bullsh1t fluff trying to cover up and justify your basic aversion to the very thought of eating dog. This, again, is also grigori's underlying dilemma, one which he knows he cannot verbalize without immediately becoming vulnerable to charges of being called a logicless hypocrite.

"When we humans kill and eat dogs, it represents our massive betrayal of the dog's loyalty and trust for us. This is absolutely immoral regardless of what culture we are talking about."

Sheep, horses, and cattle also unconditionally trust their owners, but I don't see you shedding tears over the millions of sheep and cows killed annually for human consumption, or the millions of horses killed in Western countries like France, Italy, Canada, Australia (and other countries) annually for human consumption. In fact sheep are the absolute epitome of blind trust, which is why we use "sheep" as a pejorative when we want to insult humans if they display blind, irrational obedience to authority. Whenever we kill and eat these animals, it represents our massive "betrayal" of the sheep and cow's and horse's loyalty and trust for us. Yet I don't see you making an impassioned speech for them, or saying that it's "absolutely immoral" to eat them. Is it because they aren't cute enough for you?