> It has nothing to do with people except in how it's commonly used
I have no idea where you got this idea, but I have never read it anywhere.
I think you're trying to use a literal translation of parts of a neoclassical compound. Etymology is scarcely _literal_, because words from classical languages like Greek and Latin (and even modern languages such as German) do not always _directly_ translate to English (look up the literal translation of the German word 'brustwarzen' for example). The literal translation from Spanish "de nada" to English is "of nothing" but that is not how language works. Instead, the meaning is translated to "you are welcome." Regardless, 'genocide' is not a Greek word. It is a neoclassical compound that uses with the Greek prefix genos- (race or tribe), and the Latin suffix -caedo (to kill). The word was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe where he says it is "a new term and new conception for destruction of nations" (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml). Neoclassical compounds do not necessarily carry the full context of the sum of their parts and are generally created to have a single meaning. Similarly, Joost Meerlo coined the neologism "menticide" (mind-kill) to which he admitted that he followed the etymology used by the UN to form the legal definition of genocide (see https://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_anal...).
The argument was directly related to the original claim of "genocide" and had nothing to do with the consumption of animals in general. I was saying that by consuming one turkey per year I am hardly contributing to the extinction of an animal.
Dogs are consumed in other countries such as Nigeria and the practice is only taboo in primarily western cultures. This has historical and cultural implications. Like I said, just because you consider something "icky" doesn't make it immoral (see https://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/09/moral-emotions-yuk-fac...).
If you are truly interested in philosophical conversations I would avoid phrases like "you don't see what's wrong with this?", because appealing to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) is not an actual argument. It's a shell for lack of reasoning and evidence (also known as a logical fallacy). If you see some breakdown of logic then please, point it out using reasoning. You may think it is immoral to consume dogs. Other countries do not. There is no "obviously immoral" conclusion to what you said. Or perhaps I missed it.
This is an interesting place to bring up the ethics of Thanksgiving given the demographic. However, given my primary avocation is philosophy, I'm interested in how you arrived at the ethical ideology that turkeys are indeed sentient and that they deserve a life devoid of human consumption. I am not a moral relativist and I prefer justified beliefs so I'll give you some context that you missed in your original comment.
My wife and I purchase local, farm-raised, organic (free of hormones), free-range poultry and we eat turkey _once per year_. It could be argued that our abstinence of industrial turkey consumption is the ethical way to justify the one I eat on Thanksgiving.
The standard treatment of animals is _arguably_ immoral in a lot of cases (certainly not all), but it depends on your view of animal consciousness, the role they play in the advancement of human life, and whether or not we have a moral and ethical duty to protect them. I'm not opposed to having ethical debates, but this seems hardly the place for it if you're interested in _authentic_ and _educated_ dialogue. Your appeal to emotion using (incorrect) words like "genocide" and "needless slaughter" suggest a strong ideology and lack of objectivity, which suggests a disinterest in philosophical pursuit of knowledge.
Genocide implies the targeted extinction of a human demographic. Thanksgiving turkeys are raised _to be food_ from the beginning. I don't believe large amounts of people are hunting around for wild turkeys a few days before Thanksgiving. Also, given their role in the US economy, I think that extermination would be bad for capitalism. Bioethics considers the immorality of raising animals for food, but I have not heard of it referred to as genocide by any reputable author. One could argue that since carnivores are not unique to humans it is "natural" and therefore not unethical. Remember, just because you consider something "icky" [doesn't make it immoral](https://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/09/moral-emotions-yuk-fac...). The opposite argument here is that humans are aware of their actions and therefore held to a higher standard. There is nothing objective about this claim since we have no access to the [qualia](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/) and consciousness of animals.
I have no idea where you got this idea, but I have never read it anywhere.
I think you're trying to use a literal translation of parts of a neoclassical compound. Etymology is scarcely _literal_, because words from classical languages like Greek and Latin (and even modern languages such as German) do not always _directly_ translate to English (look up the literal translation of the German word 'brustwarzen' for example). The literal translation from Spanish "de nada" to English is "of nothing" but that is not how language works. Instead, the meaning is translated to "you are welcome." Regardless, 'genocide' is not a Greek word. It is a neoclassical compound that uses with the Greek prefix genos- (race or tribe), and the Latin suffix -caedo (to kill). The word was coined in 1944 by Raphael Lemkin in his book Axis Rule in Occupied Europe where he says it is "a new term and new conception for destruction of nations" (https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml). Neoclassical compounds do not necessarily carry the full context of the sum of their parts and are generally created to have a single meaning. Similarly, Joost Meerlo coined the neologism "menticide" (mind-kill) to which he admitted that he followed the etymology used by the UN to form the legal definition of genocide (see https://www.un.org/ar/preventgenocide/adviser/pdf/osapg_anal...).