Realizing now the mistake one makes when trying to remain neutral in a discussion where vegans are involved.
“Realizing now the mistake one makes when trying to remain neutral in a discussion where abolitionists are involved” ~ someone in 1850s Kansas, trying to remain neutral in a discussion about slavery and complaining about those damn abolitionists who can’t see the nuance in owning people
>inb4 some room temperature IQ replies with “are you really equating eating meat with slavery?”
No, slavery is worse than animal agriculture. That doesn’t mean that animal agriculture isn’t wrong for the same reasons that slavery is. You’re driving a demand for unnecessary harm to be done to sentient beings for a product you don’t need to survive.
You say the cow cares? I say the cow never asked for your advocacy. And we both know you cannot prove it has.
I can prove pretty easily that cows can suffer. I can’t prove that any individual cow wanted to live any more than I can prove that any murder victim wanted to live, but it’s a safe fucking assumption that they did.
And it’s also safe to assume they are entirely clueless about the concept of meat consumption
And a child doesn’t know what sex is, but it turns out that the victim not being able to comprehend the crime being committed against them is not a justification for committing that crime. I know, you don’t think your logic can be expanded to cover things outside of dietary decisions, but it can whether you like it or not.
What someone wants to eat, provided it is legal- is only considered to be your business to you and you alone- not to them. So your opinions of their consumption of cheeseburgers is every bit as important to an omnivore as the opinions of Christian fundamentalists are to the LGBTQ.
Something being legal does not mean it’s okay, and my opinion of me consumption is a bit more meaningful than the opinions of Christian fundamentalists to the lgbt, on account that your perfectly legal dietary decisions actively cause harm in a way that being gay doesn’t.
The cow
“Realizing now the mistake one makes when trying to remain neutral in a discussion where abolitionists are involved” ~ someone in 1850s Kansas, trying to remain neutral in a discussion about slavery and complaining about those damn abolitionists who can’t see the nuance in owning people
>inb4 some room temperature IQ replies with “are you really equating eating meat with slavery?”
No, slavery is worse than animal agriculture. That doesn’t mean that animal agriculture isn’t wrong for the same reasons that slavery is. You’re driving a demand for unnecessary harm to be done to sentient beings for a product you don’t need to survive.
deleted by creator
I can prove pretty easily that cows can suffer. I can’t prove that any individual cow wanted to live any more than I can prove that any murder victim wanted to live, but it’s a safe fucking assumption that they did.
And a child doesn’t know what sex is, but it turns out that the victim not being able to comprehend the crime being committed against them is not a justification for committing that crime. I know, you don’t think your logic can be expanded to cover things outside of dietary decisions, but it can whether you like it or not.
Something being legal does not mean it’s okay, and my opinion of me consumption is a bit more meaningful than the opinions of Christian fundamentalists to the lgbt, on account that your perfectly legal dietary decisions actively cause harm in a way that being gay doesn’t.
eating cheeseburgers doesn’t cause harm
it’s not. we don’t have proof that cows understand personal mortality. we therefore have no reason to believe they want to live or not to die.
deleted by creator