I am very scared of the vegan movement, they will try to take our right away to have companion animals.

[Wolf2]

I think we should eat a lot less meat. It’s bad for the environment and needlessly kills animals. I believe we can love animals and still sometimes use them for our survival, however we must be far more thoughtful in how we do this. Native Americans would hunt, they would catch an animal, thank the Spirits for the gift and/or the animal’s Spirit, and use as much of the animal as possible.

In capitalist society, keeping zoos in check is profitable. Most of us would rather marry our animals than eat them. We make love and not war and are therefore a threat to the military-industrial complex.

 

[Bigpaws_Bear]

How Vegans See Me.

 

[Wolf2]

How Vegans See Me.

Honestly pretty gross.

Also hi Lady GaGa

 

[Bigpaws_Bear]

Honestly pretty gross.

Also hi Lady GaGa

Indeed, it screams for a Big Ole BBQ even I don't eat it raw. (Chuckle)

 

[knotinterested]

Indeed, it screams for a Big Ole BBQ even I don't eat it raw. (Chuckle)

Spicy I hope

 

[aruss]

How Vegans See Me.

Seems like something you'd see on epic meal time. I'd be interested in eating a "meat gun" ??

 

[SociallyHawkward]

In fact, over time they have gotten smaller than the ones which were on primate ancestors-ancestors which were primarily vegetarian. Research suggests that the human brain grew exponentially as soon as early humans started harvesting root vegetables and cooking them--carbohydrates which the body converted into glucose which fed a growing brain.

Citation needed. Our distant ancestors were vegetarian, yes. But as plants became scarce where they lived they ate meat out of necessity.

As for vitamin B-12, it doesn't come from animals, anyway. Animals can't even produce it themselves. It comes from bacteria found in soil. Animals can acquire it from eating bacteria in soil and the drinking water. But, most livestock is now fed things like soybeans (80-90% of what's grown is fed to them and not humans) and with how clean everything is these days, most of the B-12 that's found in meat is injected after the fact. It's a supplement, no different than plant-based foods which are fortified with B-12. If we were to eat root vegetables from the earth which weren't sterilized and had a good clean source of natural water, we'd likely get all the B-12 we need from that.

Vitamin B12 is produced by bacteria and not the animals themselves, but the later part of your argument is where it breaks down. Actually, it's produced by the gut flora of animals, but humans can't absorb it because it's produced in the colon for us. Cows and sheep can absorb the Vitamin B12 produced in their gut because they're foregut fermenters, for example. Where'd you get the idea that they get it from the soil?

Another thing to think about is that we'd use a lot less land if we ate plants directly, instead of feeding more plants to animals and then eating the animals. Even though crop deaths are an unfortunate reality, more of them occur when growing crops to feed to animals, which we then kill also.

That's true. However, if we used vertical farming techniques such as hydroponics and aeroponics and GMO crops to increase yield, it'd be less of an issue. But we should be doing that regardless.

Make of all this information what you will. I think a decision should be based upon research rather than simply following tradition. To some people the taste of their food is more important than anything else.

I agree, which is one reason I back my points up with citations.

Some people are selective in which animals they love and which ones they don't.

True, but saying you can't love animals while also eating them is extreme.

I think, though, that as the general population learns more about the way the world really is (and not the illusion we're taught to believe), that big changes are going to happen.

Big changes like artificial meat that's even cheaper than regular meat and without the mistreatment of animals? Definitely.

 

[Black_Unicorn]

I think we have covered just about everything in this discussion, which has been interesting.

I think the ultimate out come of meat eating will be cultured meat "not artificial" but real animal cells given the nutrients to replicate in to meal sized portions.

How that is done and how it affects farming we will have to monitor.

Zoo50, I think your idea of leave the animals alone except for sex is a bit selfish. A utilitarian culture would be all for the use of animals to fill any need. To narrow that need to just sex is self gratifying.

I would love to know what your aim is in these discussions. You agree that native cultures are allowed to eat meat. You agree that history shows man to be a meat eater even today.

Your argument seems to be that Morally man should not eat meat even though he always has and must do so in most cultures around the world.

You almost want to part of your own species of humans that look down on the rest of humanity and decry their base instincts to survive.

I don't know if you are trying to convert one person or many to try Vegan even though you seem to understand that most of the world has no method available to be Vegan.

It seems to be a pipe dream of a utopia, where humans and animals live long healthy lives with no suffering, just to have interspecies sex.

You seem to accept that if you were eaten it would be just bad luck, but the rest of the world must follow your rules.

 

[Knotty95]

I have a lot of respect for vegans who don't force their lifestyle down other peoples throats. For some of us we need meat to have a balanced diet. Maybe we have difficulties finding a better source of protein, maybe we are on minimum wage & have rent & a car & other things to pay so can't afford a vegan lifestyle, maybe we just don't want to sacrifice our health.

One can very much love animals & be for animal rights but still eat meat. I respect a vegans choice not to eat meat & I expect the same courtesy in return.

& to those saying humans shouldn't eat meat, humans have been eating meat since before we were humans. For millions of years our ancestors have been omnivorous, we have evolved the teeth & digestive tract to be able to consume plants & animals, it is an invaluable trait during times of crisis (such as during the ice age or KT extinction event, the Toba super volcanic eruption, the great dying etc....), we shouldn't give up this invaluable trait. I guarantee you there will be another mass extinction in the future & we want to equip our descendants with the traits to be able to survive it.
& what about lions or crocodiles in Africa? Make no mistake, they kill & eat humans. Would you campaign for human lives in Africa, force all carnivores to go vegan? Or do you put humans on a different playing field. Are we equal to animals or are we superior? If we're equal, you should campaign against carnivores in Africa (or every continent for that matter), if we're superior, then why do you talk about them as equals?

Personally I don't think humans are doing anything other than a lion would do if it were smart enough. We're not doing anything unnatural as we are creatures of nature & animals would do the exact same thing if they could.

I'm all for treating animals humanely. Give them a good life & kill them quick, out of sight of the other animals to minimise trauma.
I'm pro-meat & pro-animal rights.

Besides, free-range farming is far more humane than hunting.

 

[knottygirlx]

I sincerely doubt there are enough vegans in this world that want to abolish owning pets in order to make it happen! I have quite a few vegan friends/family members in my life that all own pets, vegans are more interested in stopping animals being slaughtered for consumption than they are interested in stopping pet owners! Don’t worry too much about it, it’s probably a myth, and if not I doubt it would come to fruition anyway as it would be far too difficult to accomplish!

 

[pferdefreund]

6 pages of posts on a non-issue, sorry.

In the United States, currently about 85 million families own a pet.

About 1.6 million Americans are vegan.

If you want to be elected as a politician....

 

[knotinterested]

6 pages of posts on a non-issue, sorry.

In the United States, currently about 85 million families own a pet.

About 1.6 million Americans are vegan.

If you want to be elected as a politician....

Well you know how it goes once the discussion starts.....................

 

[knotinterested]

Unbelievable - Knotty95 made a lot of statements trying not to offend the vegans of the board and then SkawdtDawg takes them and tries to project his views back.
Ok, First off yes you can love animals and eat meat. Eating meat has nothing to do with how we feel about animals. If you want to have it your way then fine - I love animals because I want to eat them and I love eating animals. Not a damn thing wrong with it and it's been going on for over 2000 years. I'm not forcing it on you as you are forcing your opinion on the rest of us. I'm not defending my position, I'm telling you how it is and there isn't anything you can say that will change my mind. I grew up eating meat and i will be eating meat until the day I die.
It is not immoral to kill an animal and eat it. If it were immoral then somewhere in the world there would be laws against it - AND THERE ARE NONE.
We humans have teeth in our mouths that by design are meant to eat meat, and also to eat vegetables. Carnivores have teethe designed for tearing flesh and eating meat - Herbivores have teeth that are designed for grinding plants and vegetables - Omnivores have teeth designed for both. We classify humans as omnivores because humans eat both.

Here it is plain and simple - There is no right or wrong in eating meat - There is no right or wrong in choosing not to eat meat.

 

[knotinterested]

Sorry if I offended you. I wasn't offended and didn't intend to offend, either. If expressing my point of view isn't welcome, then I'll stop. But, I don't think I am forcing my opinion on anyone by further explaining a point of view which differs from your own, either. Agree with it or don't. I'm aware of how things are, but wanted to point out that the way things are aren't always the way they should be. The law also often leaves a lot to be desired and changes over time as people realize that past actions (like human slavery) weren't moral.

Edit: I also wanted to answer questions which were posed and counter some of the statements posted in order to continue the discussion in an objective way. But if people are just going to take it personally, then I'm done, as I have no interest in having a hostile conversation.

I may have given off a vibe that I was offended but I was not. If there were no counters to views that are expressed then the threads would all be pretty dull.

Please if you have more to say, points to make, the we are all ears.

 

[RoughFucker40]

Is Zoo50 actually Aluzky?

 

[Zoo50]

I really think the priority is to stop animals from being slaughtered when there is no need (which even happens as a direct result of eating eggs and dairy) rather than taking away peoples' pets. The vegan argument at least seems to be logically consistent and well-thought-out, while most of the population just does what it's been conditioned to do and tries to justify it, despite contradicting evidence (morally, environmentally, and healthwise).

It's the main human population that cries about wanting people in jail for "sexually abusing animals" but then goes on about how animals were "meant to be eaten" that has me scratching my head. They talk about animals not being able to consent to sex, but ignore that they don't consent to being enslaved and slaughtered. But, society shapes people, though it doesn't mean individuals can't break the mold.

People are irrational and inconsistent (with how they treat animals), treating some animals as pets while treating other animals as exploitable objects to be slaughtered. Unfortunately, that irrational inconsistency is embedded within laws.

Non-consensual things like slaughter are legal -- therefore, a claim that sex with animals should be illegal "because it doesn't involve consent" is bullshit. If people were concerned about animal "consent", they would ban slaughter.

 

[Zoo50]

One can very much love animals & be for animal rights but still eat meat. I respect a vegans choice not to eat meat & I expect the same courtesy in return.

This is nonsense. One cannot love animals and be for animal rights while simultaneously eating meat, because the act of eating meat is itself speciesist and is the opposite of loving animals.

& to those saying humans shouldn't eat meat, humans have been eating meat since before we were humans. For millions of years our ancestors have been omnivorous, we have evolved the teeth & digestive tract to be able to consume plants & animals, it is an invaluable trait during times of crisis (such as during the ice age or KT extinction event, the Toba super volcanic eruption, the great dying etc....), we shouldn't give up this invaluable trait. I guarantee you there will be another mass extinction in the future & we want to equip our descendants with the traits to be able to survive it.

Again, what our ancestors did is irrelevant. What matters is that meat-eating is inherently immoral and should not occur.

& what about lions or crocodiles in Africa? Make no mistake, they kill & eat humans. Would you campaign for human lives in Africa, force all carnivores to go vegan? Or do you put humans on a different playing field. Are we equal to animals or are we superior? If we're equal, you should campaign against carnivores in Africa (or every continent for that matter), if we're superior, then why do you talk about them as equals?

Yes, crocodiles sometimes eat humans, but what's your point? Crocodiles don't understand morality the way humans do, therefore it is morally OK for them to eat animals (which, unfortunately, sometimes includes humans). Just because a crocodile eats meat doesn't mean humans must also do it. Humans do not need to eat meat (whereas crocodiles do). Humans can make the ethical choice of not eating meat.

Actually, if one is to think of humans as being morally equal to other animals, that means not supporting their slaughter -- which means not eating meat. If one is to think of beings such as pigs as worthy of moral value (the same value that humans give to one another), that means not killing them.

I'm all for treating animals humanely. Give them a good life & kill them quick, out of sight of the other animals to minimise trauma.

So would you think the same thing for humans? (i.e. killing humans with minimal trauma). The death penalty and medically-assisted euthanasia are two cases in which humans are (legally) killed. Do you think it is moral to kill humans so long as there is no pain/suffering? If your answer is "humans are more valuable than other species", then that is speciesism.

I'm pro-meat & pro-animal rights.

This is bullshit and an oxymoron. It is not possible to be pro-meat and pro-animal rights at the same time -- it is a contradiction.

Is Zoo50 actually Aluzky?

I'm not Aluzky.

Ok, First off yes you can love animals and eat meat. Eating meat has nothing to do with how we feel about animals. If you want to have it your way then fine - I love animals because I want to eat them and I love eating animals.

This is nonsense. It is impossible to love animals while simultaneously eating them (it's because eating animals means one is supporting animal slaughter, which is an inherently unethical act). This is the same nonsense Knotty95 was saying. It's incredible that people say they love animals while also supporting the murder of animals -- it's total hypocrisy, and it is morally inconsistent.

Also, eating meat has everything to do with how one views animals. When one eats meat, they are being speciesist -- they are viewing animals as commodities (lesser beings), rather than as beings worthy of moral value.

I'm not defending my position, I'm telling you how it is and there isn't anything you can say that will change my mind. I grew up eating meat and i will be eating meat until the day I die.

You are very stubborn. You should open your mind to the fact that other beings (other than humans) are worthy of moral consideration -- and that means not eating meat.

If it were immoral then somewhere in the world there would be laws against it - AND THERE ARE NONE.

As a zoo, you should know that just because a law says something (or doesn't say something) doesn't necessarily make it right. Slavery and racial segregation were both legal, that doesn't make them right. Animal slaughter ought to be against the law, even though it isn't.

We classify humans as omnivores because humans eat both.

As I said, humans do not need to eat meat. Saying "humans are omnivores" is just an excuse to keep eating meat (which is really just animal corpses). The "humans are omnivores" argument is nonsense because humans don't have to be "omnivores".

Here it is plain and simple - There is no right or wrong in eating meat - There is no right or wrong in choosing not to eat meat.

This is not true -- it is morally wrong to eat meat, for all the reasons I've already mentioned in this thread. Animal slaughter (animals being murdered) is inherently immoral. The only possible exception would be cultured meat grown in a laboratory.

Also, @SkawdtDawg -- everything you said is correct. Non-human animals have an interest in not being killed, and they have a desire to not be killed (in the same way that humans desire to not be killed), therefore non-human animals should not be killed. Killing animals for human purposes is speciesist. And, as you said, someone who claims to love animals but also supports killing them is a hypocrite.

 

[Knotty95]

This is nonsense. One cannot love animals and be for animal rights while simultaneously eating meat, because the act of eating meat is itself speciesist and is the opposite of loving animals.



Again, what our ancestors did is irrelevant. What matters is that meat-eating is inherently immoral and should not occur.



Yes, crocodiles sometimes eat humans, but what's your point? Crocodiles don't understand morality the way humans do, therefore it is morally OK for them to eat animals (which, unfortunately, sometimes includes humans). Just because a crocodile eats meat doesn't mean humans must also do it. Humans do not need to eat meat (whereas crocodiles do). Humans can make the ethical choice of not eating meat.

Actually, if one is to think of humans as being morally equal to other animals, that means not supporting their slaughter -- which means not eating meat. If one is to think of beings such as pigs as worthy of moral value (the same value that humans give to one another), that means not killing them.



So would you think the same thing for humans? (i.e. killing humans with minimal trauma). The death penalty and medically-assisted euthanasia are two cases in which humans are (legally) killed. Do you think it is moral to kill humans so long as there is no pain/suffering? If your answer is "humans are more valuable than other species", then that is speciesism.



This is bullshit and an oxymoron. It is not possible to be pro-meat and pro-animal rights at the same time -- it is a contradiction.



I'm not Aluzky.



This is nonsense. It is impossible to love animals while simultaneously eating them (it's because eating animals means one is supporting animal slaughter, which is an inherently unethical act). This is the same nonsense Knotty95 was saying. It's incredible that people say they love animals while also supporting the murder of animals -- it's total hypocrisy, and it is morally inconsistent.

Also, eating meat has everything to do with how one views animals. When one eats meat, they are being speciesist -- they are viewing animals as commodities (lesser beings), rather than as beings worthy of moral value.



You are very stubborn. You should open your mind to the fact that other beings (other than humans) are worthy of moral consideration -- and that means not eating meat.



As a zoo, you should know that just because a law says something (or doesn't say something) doesn't necessarily make it right. Slavery and racial segregation were both legal, that doesn't make them right. Animal slaughter ought to be against the law, even though it isn't.



As I said, humans do not need to eat meat. Saying "humans are omnivores" is just an excuse to keep eating meat (which is really just animal corpses). The "humans are omnivores" argument is nonsense because humans don't have to be "omnivores".



This is not true -- it is morally wrong to eat meat, for all the reasons I've already mentioned in this thread. Animal slaughter (animals being murdered) is inherently immoral. The only possible exception would be cultured meat grown in a laboratory.

Also, @SkawdtDawg -- everything you said is correct. Non-human animals have an interest in not being killed, and they have a desire to not be killed (in the same way that humans desire to not be killed), therefore non-human animals should not be killed. Killing animals for human purposes is speciesist. And, as you said, someone who claims to love animals but also supports killing them is a hypocrite.

Ok Zoomer.

 

[shrimpsoda]

“You wouldn’t be OK with killing a dog..” OP is definitely not from the country.. ask any country folk about what happens when a stray dog or dogs come and terrorize your animals.. SSS. This was the staple method of dealing with stray dogs on the Backyard Chickens forum back in the day.. Yes dog killings happen in America, but it is usually the last resort. When a dog comes on your land to terrorize/kill your property (cows, sheep, chickens) at that point it is no longer a pet but a predator. Most people have a LGD to protect their animals. A Great Pyrenees dog will tear up any predators, even other dogs, that pose a threat to livestock/poultry.

 

[knotinterested]

This is bullshit and an oxymoron. It is not possible to be pro-meat and pro-animal rights at the same time -- it is a contradiction.

This is nonsense. It is impossible to love animals while simultaneously eating them (it's because eating animals means one is supporting animal slaughter, which is an inherently unethical act). This is the same nonsense Knotty95 was saying. It's incredible that people say they love animals while also supporting the murder of animals -- it's total hypocrisy, and it is morally inconsistent.

Also, eating meat has everything to do with how one views animals. When one eats meat, they are being speciesist -- they are viewing animals as commodities (lesser beings), rather than as beings worthy of moral value.

You are very stubborn. You should open your mind to the fact that other beings (other than humans) are worthy of moral consideration -- and that means not eating meat.

As a zoo, you should know that just because a law says something (or doesn't say something) doesn't necessarily make it right. Slavery and racial segregation were both legal, that doesn't make them right. Animal slaughter ought to be against the law, even though it isn't.

As I said, humans do not need to eat meat. Saying "humans are omnivores" is just an excuse to keep eating meat (which is really just animal corpses). The "humans are omnivores" argument is nonsense because humans don't have to be "omnivores".

This is not true -- it is morally wrong to eat meat, for all the reasons I've already mentioned in this thread. Animal slaughter (animals being murdered) is inherently immoral. The only possible exception would be cultured meat grown in a laboratory.

Also, @SkawdtDawg -- everything you said is correct. Non-human animals have an interest in not being killed, and they have a desire to not be killed (in the same way that humans desire to not be killed), therefore non-human animals should not be killed. Killing animals for human purposes is speciesist. And, as you said, someone who claims to love animals but also supports killing them is a hypocrite.

All of your opinions are yours. I DO NOT SHARE THEM.

I am no more of a hypocrite then you are. If you are going to exploit an animal for your own gratification - using them for sex, then you are not allowing the animal to be itself. So to say you love animals and then use them is hypocritical.

I love animals and weather you agree or not your opinion has no value in my opinion. I'm as stubborn in my opinion as you are stubborn in your opinion. And if you are going to call me a hypocrite then first look into the mirror and call yourself one.

If you want to live your life not eating meat then that is your choice. If you want to have sex with animals then that is your choice. But as you have the right to make your choices I also have the right to make my choices.

So brother hypocrite have a nice vegetable dinner - as for me I'm having a nice steak with a baked potato and Texas toast.

 

[TogglesHappyZoo]

Your defense is applaudable - but if we are to totally respect animals then we should let them live out their lives without our taking an interest in them, without intruding on their purity, and that would mean that we are violating their rights by having sex with them. You can't justify the having sex part as being ok. You can't say sex is ok because it doesn't involve their death. Any infraction is a violation of their right to be, whether it involve their death or just having sex. If you're going to view it in one sense then you have to take the entire scope and relate to it in that fashion.

This seems to suppose that having sex with a consenting animal partner is a violation of their right to be, and I take a bit of umbrage with that.


Reading a little further up, you consider sex with animals to be exploitation. If you're exploiting your animal to have sex with them, you shouldn't be having sex with them. And if you consider any mutually pleasurable sexual encounter with animals with both parties in agreement to be exploitative, then I'm immediately suspicious of your motives as a zoophile.

 

[knotinterested]

This seems to suppose that having sex with a consenting animal partner is a violation of their right to be, and I take a bit of umbrage with that.


Reading a little further up, you consider sex with animals to be exploitation. If you're exploiting your animal to have sex with them, you shouldn't be having sex with them. And if you consider any mutually pleasurable sexual encounter with animals with both parties in agreement to be exploitative, then I'm immediately suspicious of your motives as a zoophile.

I'm illustrating a point.

 

[RoughFucker40]

This is nonsense. One cannot love animals and be for animal rights while simultaneously eating meat, because the act of eating meat is itself speciesist and is the opposite of loving animals.



Again, what our ancestors did is irrelevant. What matters is that meat-eating is inherently immoral and should not occur.



Yes, crocodiles sometimes eat humans, but what's your point? Crocodiles don't understand morality the way humans do, therefore it is morally OK for them to eat animals (which, unfortunately, sometimes includes humans). Just because a crocodile eats meat doesn't mean humans must also do it. Humans do not need to eat meat (whereas crocodiles do). Humans can make the ethical choice of not eating meat.

Actually, if one is to think of humans as being morally equal to other animals, that means not supporting their slaughter -- which means not eating meat. If one is to think of beings such as pigs as worthy of moral value (the same value that humans give to one another), that means not killing them.



So would you think the same thing for humans? (i.e. killing humans with minimal trauma). The death penalty and medically-assisted euthanasia are two cases in which humans are (legally) killed. Do you think it is moral to kill humans so long as there is no pain/suffering? If your answer is "humans are more valuable than other species", then that is speciesism.



This is bullshit and an oxymoron. It is not possible to be pro-meat and pro-animal rights at the same time -- it is a contradiction.



I'm not Aluzky.



This is nonsense. It is impossible to love animals while simultaneously eating them (it's because eating animals means one is supporting animal slaughter, which is an inherently unethical act). This is the same nonsense Knotty95 was saying. It's incredible that people say they love animals while also supporting the murder of animals -- it's total hypocrisy, and it is morally inconsistent.

Also, eating meat has everything to do with how one views animals. When one eats meat, they are being speciesist -- they are viewing animals as commodities (lesser beings), rather than as beings worthy of moral value.



You are very stubborn. You should open your mind to the fact that other beings (other than humans) are worthy of moral consideration -- and that means not eating meat.



As a zoo, you should know that just because a law says something (or doesn't say something) doesn't necessarily make it right. Slavery and racial segregation were both legal, that doesn't make them right. Animal slaughter ought to be against the law, even though it isn't.



As I said, humans do not need to eat meat. Saying "humans are omnivores" is just an excuse to keep eating meat (which is really just animal corpses). The "humans are omnivores" argument is nonsense because humans don't have to be "omnivores".



This is not true -- it is morally wrong to eat meat, for all the reasons I've already mentioned in this thread. Animal slaughter (animals being murdered) is inherently immoral. The only possible exception would be cultured meat grown in a laboratory.

Also, @SkawdtDawg -- everything you said is correct. Non-human animals have an interest in not being killed, and they have a desire to not be killed (in the same way that humans desire to not be killed), therefore non-human animals should not be killed. Killing animals for human purposes is speciesist. And, as you said, someone who claims to love animals but also supports killing them is a hypocrite.

And you’re 100% certain you’re not Aluzky? Where are you from if you don’t mind me asking?

 

[TogglesHappyZoo]

I mean if @Zoo50 IS Aluzky, Fausty's been trying to confirm whether or not your alive, so like... DM me

 

[Zoo50]

All of your opinions are yours. I DO NOT SHARE THEM.

I am no more of a hypocrite then you are. If you are going to exploit an animal for your own gratification - using them for sex, then you are not allowing the animal to be itself. So to say you love animals and then use them is hypocritical.

I love animals and weather you agree or not your opinion has no value in my opinion. I'm as stubborn in my opinion as you are stubborn in your opinion. And if you are going to call me a hypocrite then first look into the mirror and call yourself one.

If you want to live your life not eating meat then that is your choice. If you want to have sex with animals then that is your choice. But as you have the right to make your choices I also have the right to make my choices.

So brother hypocrite have a nice vegetable dinner - as for me I'm having a nice steak with a baked potato and Texas toast.

Having sex with an animal is not "sexual exploitation" -- that's the same argument that anti-zoos use. Also, having sex with an animal is not "using" the animal. So loving an animal while approving of zoo sex is not hypocrisy.

Also, the issue of sex with animals isn't really related to main issue of this thread.

Nonetheless, if one is going to compare meat-eating to sex, one should realize that sex with an animal is far more ethical than slaughtering one (i.e. depriving an animal of his/her life). This means that meat-eating is far more of a betrayal of animals than sex is.

 

[knotinterested]

Having sex with an animal is not "sexual exploitation" -- that's the same argument that anti-zoos use. Also, having sex with an animal is not "using" the animal. So loving an animal while approving of zoo sex is not hypocrisy.

Also, the issue of sex with animals isn't really related to main issue of this thread.

Nonetheless, if one is going to compare meat-eating to sex, one should realize that sex with an animal is far more ethical than slaughtering one (i.e. depriving an animal of his/her life). This means that meat-eating is far more of a betrayal of animals than sex is.

okay more of your opinions

Enjoy your dinner - I'm eating steak and love it. Also love the cow it came from - Have a nice day

 

[Zoo50]

okay more of your opinions

Enjoy your dinner - I'm eating steak and love it. Also love the cow it came from - Have a nice day

If you eat animals, you don't love them, even if you say you do. You are treating them as objects / commodities, not beings worthy of moral consideration.

Also, by eating meat, you are treating non-human animals differently than you treat humans (i.e. speciesism). If you really were to treat other animals as equals, you wouldn't support killing them.

 

[knotinterested]

If you eat animals, you don't love them, even if you say you do. You are treating them as objects / commodities, not beings worthy of moral consideration.

Also, by eating meat, you are treating non-human animals differently than you treat humans (i.e. speciesism). If you really were to treat other animals as equals, you wouldn't support killing them.

I wonder if you kill insects?

 

[FeralLovin']

If you eat animals, you don't love them

Would it be so hard to believe that the animals I consume, I do not love, but the animals I do love, I fuc- don't eat?

 

[Hewflungpew]

I have a simple solution: eat them all. Get protein and a salad in one
Lmao