Paraphrased. Ag-gag laws exist in many countries besides the US, and I can 100% guarantee that your region is just as abusive to your farm animals as the US or Australia.
And I've given you an answer as to why.
You've given the answer as to why do dogs get a pass, but that's still not an answer as to why should dogs get a pass. Unless your ethical framework is really as base as thinking "me liking something makes it good and me not liking something makes it bad," in which case I don't think you're really capable of engaging in this conversation.
So, your worst case scenario, is that people agree with you. You don't think that's a bit counter-intuitive?
I'm just gonna say I don't think we generally permit torture of animals
I would love for you to watch Dominion and then get back to me on this. We literally have laws against reporting animal abuse on farms in the US. As for your story, it did an excellent job restating what I already said: people simply like dogs better. That a lot of people have had positive experiences with cats and dogs doesn't make them less deserving of a youthful slaughter than any other animal.
I know a new father whose wife and kid recently had to go out of town for a few days. You know how Goku trains with like 250 lbs of weighted clothes? Having a kid is like that but with time management
If I tell you we’re going to the football game and you’re excited for that and then I take you to the ballet instead, it’s still wrong! It’s lying!
Football enthusiasts are generally not morally opposed to ballet. This is not a good metaphor. Imagine instead that you're opposed to the death penalty, and I tell you that we're going to the ballet, but it's actually a public execution. I desperately hope that you can understand that that's worse than the reverse situation.
No, I'm just looking at it realistically instead of dumbing it down to a kindergarten reading level. "Lying bad" is such a numbskull take. Obviously it's better to be honest about the food you're serving people, but different lies are different amounts of bad. I shouldn't even have to explain this. If you feed me a seemingly mushroom-based dish, then reveal that it was actually made with tofu, that's not good. For all you know, I'm allergic to soy. If you instead tell me that that dish actually had veal in it, that would be worse.
On top of not knowing about any potential allergies, there's an extra layer of moral opposition. I'm not giving vegans some special pass here, that was the point of the cannibalism example. You feeding a cannibalistic friend beef under the pretense that it's human meat isn't a good thing, but it's not as bad as your cannibalistic friend feeding you long pig under the pretense that it's pork.
A vegan diet is a subset of a vegetarian diet is a subset of an omnivorous diet. It's taboo to feed a vegan meat because it lies outside their dietary restrictions, and it's not taboo to feed an omnivore plants because they're within their dietary restrictions.
More importantly there's the moral implications of it. Vegans are (generally) morally opposed to eating meat, but omnivores are not morally opposed to eating plants. Imagine a greater set of foods of which an omnivorous diet is a subset. Say, human veal. Imagine you lived in a society where the majority of people were okay with eating human children, and one of them tried to fool you into eating one. That would be an entirely different situation to you trying to feed one of them turkey, right?
I didn't ask any questions. You essentially called it evolutionary adaptation, and I disagreed
Cultures that eat dogs. Often do so because dogs lost their importance as hunting partners, and were not valued enough as companions to warrant food rations. They instead became a competitor for food. And source for food.
I can largely agree with this. But also, it feels kind of dissatisfying if the answer to "why do we permit the torture and slaughter of tens of billions of mammals and fowls, and hundreds of billions of fish, every year, but we want very badly to ban the eating of dogs specifically?" is just "people in countries where dog eating is illegal just tend to like dogs more." That may answer the very literal question that weird vegan asked, but it doesn't answer the implicit question: why should dogs get a pass when the other animals don't?
Egads! Someone who would be willing to do cannibalism were it possible to do so legally! The horror! Nothing you say can terrify me more than watching Dominion did, especially not the most milquetoast taboo subject on the internet. I'd try human meat if given the chance too, edgelord.
I never said you felt repulsed by the idea of eating dogs, I said most westerners are, which remains true.
I think it's funny that vegans are stereotyped as preachy and annoying when approximately 99% of trucks in my city have a front license plate that says EAT BEEF
Good thinking, do not allow yourself to reflect upon why this is shocking but this is fine. Eat your piggies and chicken nuggies like a good little consoomer
But its not very satirical when there people that truely beleive that...
The fact that that is an actual argument people make in favor of eating certain animals is literally what makes it satirical. There are many videos of people boiling shellfish alive, and here you are feeling disgust and revulsion at that happening to an animal that you like.
starman2112 @ starman2112 @sh.itjust.works 帖子 12评论 3,925加入于 2 yr. ago 
Yeast is a fungus, honey is an animal product