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.