First off, feel free to open with any scientific evidence that cows suffer the emotional trauma of sexual abuse from farming. Because the thing is, we have thousands of years of evidence and that doesn’t seem to be the correct conclusion. No, calling cattle insemination sexual abuse is a malicious lie.
Rambling article that fails to prove its central point. Points out that cows identify humans as “the predator” but for some reason think this doesn’t factor into a negative experience for human arms being jammed inside them? I don’t know why people feel so compelled to defend this. It’s sexual in nature and they don’t like it, end of story.
This. Right. fucking. here. You are telling me that my moral system is less than dirt. That I am inferior to you.
This whole paragraph is literally the rationalization process. You internalize that somebody pointing out an ethical issue is attacking you personally, and from there launch into a whole thing about what a zealot absolute-fucking-asshole they must be for pointing it out, how they must think you’re stupid, how dare they, blah blah blah. I am literally just talking about how a practice is unethical and the negative experiences (like this) I’ve had discussing it with people, where people flare up into an emotional shitstorm instead of talking about it calmly and rationally. You’re doing it right now.
I’m a member of a fringe religion that my country tried to ban, so fuck “little nasty bit of discrimination”. YOU DON’T GET TO CALL YOURSELF A VICTIM OF DISCRIMINATION BECAUSE I DON’T LIKE YOU BELITTLING ME.
I don’t think you’re a subhuman. I think you’re a zealot.
It is discrimination. We take an ethical position and this is generalized as a stereotype to some kind of critical fault in our personalities - incorrectly. That worse forms of discrimination exist, or that you’ve experienced them, doesn’t change that. You seem absolutely callous to my actual 10+ years of experience with this.
Ironically the “zealots” were a Jewish sect that objected to the unethicalness of Roman rule and were trying to throw it off, justifying resistance within the context of their religion.
And I’ve “lived through, rejected, and moved past” your thinking, too. I used to be an active member of a religion that has strong roots in both philosophical veganism and in philosophical omnivorism. Circle of live vs All life is sacred sects. You might not realize it, but a lot of people with a lot more understanding of ethics and a lot more philosophical background than you have spent a lot more time thinking about veganism than you have. And I lived through it, rejected it, and came out the other side.
Now you’re belittling me, ironically. And what was the actual thinking that led you to “come out the other side”? At some point here are you trying to get past all the identity politics and being offended over whatever to actually talk about brass tacks here? What is the grand scientific/philosophical reasoning you used to decide that it’s A-OK to use & abuse animals for human gain?
If you’re referring to Buddhism, I would note how Buddha’s reasoning for when eating meat is excusable does not apply to animal agriculture at all (the reasoning that, if the animal wasn’t killed for you, it’s OK - which fails the basic litmus test of how supply-and-demand works for when people actually go out and buy meat).
Rambling article that fails to prove its central point
Glad you concede.
This whole paragraph is literally the rationalization process
Thanks for admitting to what you were about to do. I agree, you are doing nothing but rationalizing in that paragraph.
It is discrimination. We take an ethical position and this is generalized as a stereotype to some kind of critical fault in our personalities - incorrectly
Please admit that the above quote, too, is rationalization.
Ironically the “zealots” were a Jewish sect that objected to the unethicalness of Roman rule and were trying to throw it off
You are doing one of three things. Either you do not know what people tend to mean by “zealot” (at which point, look it up), or you are trying to change a topic you know you are losing on, or you are arguing in bad faith. Please let me know which.
Now you’re belittling me, ironically
Not really. I am telling you that you’re not the only (or most) educated and prepared person in the vegan/meat discussion. Unless we take “vegans are axiomatically right”, you have a fairly massive burden of proof if you want to continue being offended by the idea that a non-vegan can have a 3-digit IQ.
Litmus test I’ve found over the years on internet discussion - when you try to right the ship to actually talk about the concrete issue, and the other person keeps trying to turn it into personal me-vs-you and who’s-better-than-who - they’re operating in bad faith. “I am rubber, you are glue” replies just destroy any attempt people are having for a real discussion.
Not really. I am telling you that you’re not the only (or most) educated and prepared person in the vegan/meat discussion. Unless we take “vegans are axiomatically right”, you have a fairly massive burden of proof if you want to continue being offended by the idea that a non-vegan can have a 3-digit IQ.
Discuss the actual topic, like I just asked you to. What is the reasoning that’s superior to vegan reasoning?
Thanks for the apology. Forgiven. Now onto the topic. I understand how emotional vegans can get on these issues.
What is the reasoning that’s superior to vegan reasoning?
Sticking with ethics, a few bullet points.
“Nulla poena sine lege”… “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”. A legal (and ethical) maxim. Lacking compelling reason to accept vegan reasoning, it is not forbidden to eat meat.
Every ethical system has at least one argument that supports meat-eating (some more absolute than others, like Natural Law Ethics). Joined with bullet point 1, there is no foundation worthy of continuing the discussion. A strong argument for veganism alongside a strong argument against veganism boils down to “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”, so long as one pro-meat argument remains. Pick any ethical system if you want to dig in deeper, but I tend towards Utilitarianism.
Similar to the above, life is suffering. The animals I eat live better lives than most humans, and would live WORSE lives or NO lives if they were not being eaten. (See Sir Karl Popper below)
There is my ethical reasoning that is superior to vegan reasoning. If you’re interested in someone with better foundations than even me, look up Sir Karl Popper’s position on this matter (the philosopher of the “Paradox of Tolerance” fame). He holds to Negative Utilitarianism, and disagrees with veganism being a utilitarian virtue. It was largely in response to (and/or is used in response to) Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, a Utilitarian argument for veganism I strongly disagree with.
Therefore, “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”
Check out Karl Popper’s arguments. I’d link you, but I’m having a hell of a time finding them (which sucks because he was one of my view’s larger influences).
For my points, it’s simply that through any analysis, farming animals is more net utility than not. I actually hold to it by positive Utilitarianism as well as Negative.
First is the utility of people consuming them (if there wasn’t any, everyone would just drop meat-eating in a heartbeat). There is undeniably utility in consuming meat/dairy. In a vacuum, this isn’t everything. Obviously there’s utility in a starving person committing cannibalism. In a counter-vacuum, it’s still not-nothing, since there is arguably negative utility in a plant being eaten (just not much).
Second is the utility in domesticated animals. The alternatives are wild animals or anti-natalism. For the former, there is no question that even the worst case “veal cow with botched slaughter” is better than the best case of wild animals (life of constant starvation and fear, ended slowly and incredibly painfully). As for anti-natalism… I hold with Karl Popper. To exist and feel pain is better than not to exist. Farm animls have plenty of positive-utility moments.
Third is the Utility Monster scenario. HUMANS are Utility Monsters, as compared to animals. This is not to be confused with human exceptionalism. Cows are not planning what to name their grandchildren, waiting for Christmas Dinner. They’re not excited for a delicious meal, slow roasted for 12 hours. The truth is, there is more Utility to 1000 families eating a hamburger or a steak filet than a slaughtered cow living 1 more year, even 10 more years. If one argues we are of equal utility to animals, then I do not see justification that any being should have less utility than any other. And that includes insects and, yes, plants. Either qualities of a species affect utility or they do not. One cannot have their cake and eat it.
So to sum it up… There is no disagreement that agriculture creates net positive utility for humans, right? Well, I have shown that agriculture also creates net positive utility to animals. Disagree or not, even if you could somehow poke holes in some of those points, there is an avalanche of Reason to the idea that a non-vegan world is simply better than a vegan world.
The issue with veganism is not that there’s no arguments for it (there are some). It’s that there’s plenty of arguments for meat-eating that are just as good… and that so many vegans aren’t willing to take those arguments seriously.
Please note, I made a few last minute edits you may have missed. I don’t think it matters because you do not appear to have addressed (or understood?) my arguments.
Agriculture in general creates net positive utility for humans
Sorry, I’m being strict in my terminology. I am using “Agriculture” to refer to the husbandry and harvesting of animals for human consumption. For the latter, I would use the term “horticulture”.
while it creates huge negatives for the animals involved
I have argued the opposite of this fairly comprehensively. It is bad form to open as if the opposite of my argument is axiomatic. If you are going to concede that my point was valid, then you cannot presume its opposite. If not, you are better off addressing my argument.
The equation of people consuming animal ag products to proof that it “creates utility” strikes me as the same fallacy as saying smoking cigarettes has “utility”
Cigarettes DO have some utility. They also have tremendous amounts of negative utility because they cause people to suffer horrific, multi-month-long deaths. My angles and my arguments applied to cigarettes would (correctly) conclude that cigarettes are a terrible thing while STILL defending that meat-eating is a good thing.
I’d argue it’s an irrational behavior (in terms of selfish benefit alone) that prioritizes very short-term enjoyment over long-term enjoyment.
There is value in both short- and long-term enjoyment. If you think there is no utility in short-term enjoyment at all, please provide the argument… but please open with a reason why that is even relevant to this discussion.
I don’t know where you’re getting the idea animals are living “better than humans”, this is divorced from reality.
Just look at relative average stress levels of farm animals compared to humans. And how much they suffer throughout their life. And what percent of their days are good. To quote Martin Luther King Jr. “It does not matter how long you live, but how well you do it.” Their lower consciousness has its advantages as well as disadvantages. But a cow on a farm will not suffer through 3 years of agony and self-awareness of death with metastatic lung cancer because they smoked as a kid.
Also, I’d like to point out that your incredulity is not an effective response.
Industrial animal agriculture is just that, an industrial process, animals in miserable conditions for their short lives to promote the bottom line of the company in question
I agree. Ditto with certain human societies (ever seen homeless tent cities, refugees? Ever heard of a little thing called the Holocaust?). And as with human societies, we should be responsible for improving things. But if THIS is your crux, I would be happy to move forward on the discussion of Industrial Animal Agriculture if you will concede that (for example) free range chicken farming is 100% ethically sound. Otherwise, let’s stick to the topic of agriculture as a whole. If you want to have a chance to argue the ethics of veganism, you need to steelman meat-eating. You’re creating weaknesses in your own arguments by using points that most cattle ranchers already argue.
Propagandized takes depict cows roaming around lush green hills and such, but essentially anything appearing in a supermarket had absolutely nothing to do with this.
Of course not. Having cows roam in lush green hills is stupid. They don’t care about the color of the hills. Free range cattle roam around on non-arable land and eat the grasses and weeds that will grow anywhere. I often get to see the cows and pigs I’ll someday eat living pretty damn good lives. I’ve got dairy industry in my family, so I’m not “making shit up”. I’ll re-offer my point above. Agree that some meat eating is ethical and I will happily focus on the topic of industrial farming and where to draw that line. At that point, I’m sure we’ll find some common ground, and some disagreements.
On top of that there’s the actual reality of the incredible resource (read: water, fossil fuels) usage associated with animal agriculture because it’s inherently wasteful at scale
That is its own topic, and short of a magic bullet that doesn’t exist that particular thread can’t put a dent in ethics arguments. I think you either need to decide whether to concede the ethics topic we’ve already started and we’ll pivot to ecology, or stick with the topic at hand.
See earlier point about short-term vs. long-term, except extended to the entire species. We would surely not enjoy an extinction event.
And this is where you sorta walked into your own magic bullet analysis. Care to provide that magic bullet that dairy and meat will destroy humanity and individuals cutting out dairy/meat will save humanity? The farming industry I consume has the same carbon/methane footprint it had prior to the industrial era. Otherwise, yet again, let’s stick to the topic shall we?
Agriculture refers to both animal and non-animal ag. Hence the prefix “animal” for “animal agriculture”.
“Huge negatives for animals involved” is the reality of industrial agriculture, which provides the vast majority of meat (animal products in general) for human consumption today. To your later point, “free range” is typically what’s referred to as “greenwashing”, where a company has to meet some bare-minimum criteria to get a stamp on their product. E.g., the USDA criteria for “free range” re: eggs:
Eggs packed in USDA grademarked consumer packages labeled as free range must be produced by hens that are able to roam vertically and horizontally in indoor houses, and have access to fresh food and water, and continuous access to the outdoors during their laying cycle.
Re: cigarettes - it should be clear I’m referring to net negative “utility”.
Just look at relative average stress levels of farm animals compared to humans.
Don’t know what your methodology is for determining this. Separation trauma at birth, confined spaces and health hazards from living in waste are not a formula for stress-free living.
Ecology is not a distinct topic from ethics. Ecological outcomes have pronounced effects on human and animal experience. I alluded to this already.
Care to provide that magic bullet that dairy and meat will destroy humanity and individuals cutting out dairy/meat will save humanity?
Estimates on greenhouse gas emissions seem to converge at roughly 20-25% for animal agriculture, with roughly a 10x increase over more efficient plant agriculture. A comparable increase holds for water usage, fertilizer usage, etc., due to the caloric loss intrinsic to producing feed for animals versus consuming plant agriculture products directly. Part of the problem with this interpretation is that, even if you’re only consuming actual “free range”, chickens-walking-around-outdoors-pecking-bugs, cows-roaming-grasslands-nondestructively animal agriculture, the actual vast majority of animal agriculture does not fit this profile. (Side note, it is remarkable how almost everyone you talk to about this only eats the “free range” “humanely produced” animal products, when the vast majority of the products are not). The negative effects of animal ag on animals are less pronounced in non-confined spaces, but still fit the profile of exploitation for human use at negative benefit for humans relative to plant consumption.
Your central point seems to be that the benefit derived from eating animals for humans outweighs negligible negative effects on animals in an isolated best-world case of free range, “humane slaughter” scenarios. I would dispute that it’s a net positive for humans in the first place, and you’re basically putting the actual vast majority of animal agriculture in a special category you get to ignore because, supposedly, there are negligible or no negative effects on the animals that you consume. Which, first off, I doubt, but second, hits the ethical question of killing, which bears mentioning the ethics we apply to humans on these grounds. We do not consider it ethically acceptable to kill a random human walking down the street, of your own volition. Why? Something like, the trauma that their family/friends/acquaintances would endure, and the cost of denying them the rest of their life. For some reason these same points are not held true of animals? You may deny that they experience such trauma, but that would be incorrect. And the cost of denying them the rest of their life is undeniable.
I’m calling it here tbh. I don’t think this is going anywhere beyond here.
Rambling article that fails to prove its central point. Points out that cows identify humans as “the predator” but for some reason think this doesn’t factor into a negative experience for human arms being jammed inside them? I don’t know why people feel so compelled to defend this. It’s sexual in nature and they don’t like it, end of story.
This whole paragraph is literally the rationalization process. You internalize that somebody pointing out an ethical issue is attacking you personally, and from there launch into a whole thing about what a zealot absolute-fucking-asshole they must be for pointing it out, how they must think you’re stupid, how dare they, blah blah blah. I am literally just talking about how a practice is unethical and the negative experiences (like this) I’ve had discussing it with people, where people flare up into an emotional shitstorm instead of talking about it calmly and rationally. You’re doing it right now.
It is discrimination. We take an ethical position and this is generalized as a stereotype to some kind of critical fault in our personalities - incorrectly. That worse forms of discrimination exist, or that you’ve experienced them, doesn’t change that. You seem absolutely callous to my actual 10+ years of experience with this.
Ironically the “zealots” were a Jewish sect that objected to the unethicalness of Roman rule and were trying to throw it off, justifying resistance within the context of their religion.
Now you’re belittling me, ironically. And what was the actual thinking that led you to “come out the other side”? At some point here are you trying to get past all the identity politics and being offended over whatever to actually talk about brass tacks here? What is the grand scientific/philosophical reasoning you used to decide that it’s A-OK to use & abuse animals for human gain?
If you’re referring to Buddhism, I would note how Buddha’s reasoning for when eating meat is excusable does not apply to animal agriculture at all (the reasoning that, if the animal wasn’t killed for you, it’s OK - which fails the basic litmus test of how supply-and-demand works for when people actually go out and buy meat).
you are attacking them personally.
no one said abuse is ok.
i don’t think you’ve ever asked buddha about it.
lol. from the user who feels the need to announce a block because they don’t like when i tell them they’re wrong.
it’s not about your ethical position, it’s about your personality faults.
Glad you concede.
Thanks for admitting to what you were about to do. I agree, you are doing nothing but rationalizing in that paragraph.
Please admit that the above quote, too, is rationalization.
You are doing one of three things. Either you do not know what people tend to mean by “zealot” (at which point, look it up), or you are trying to change a topic you know you are losing on, or you are arguing in bad faith. Please let me know which.
Not really. I am telling you that you’re not the only (or most) educated and prepared person in the vegan/meat discussion. Unless we take “vegans are axiomatically right”, you have a fairly massive burden of proof if you want to continue being offended by the idea that a non-vegan can have a 3-digit IQ.
Thanks for the discussion. Don’t reply.
This is just obnoxious.
Litmus test I’ve found over the years on internet discussion - when you try to right the ship to actually talk about the concrete issue, and the other person keeps trying to turn it into personal me-vs-you and who’s-better-than-who - they’re operating in bad faith. “I am rubber, you are glue” replies just destroy any attempt people are having for a real discussion.
Discuss the actual topic, like I just asked you to. What is the reasoning that’s superior to vegan reasoning?
Thanks for the apology. Forgiven. Now onto the topic. I understand how emotional vegans can get on these issues.
Sticking with ethics, a few bullet points.
There is my ethical reasoning that is superior to vegan reasoning. If you’re interested in someone with better foundations than even me, look up Sir Karl Popper’s position on this matter (the philosopher of the “Paradox of Tolerance” fame). He holds to Negative Utilitarianism, and disagrees with veganism being a utilitarian virtue. It was largely in response to (and/or is used in response to) Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation, a Utilitarian argument for veganism I strongly disagree with.
Therefore, “Everything which is not forbidden is allowed”
Mmn, so negative utilitarianism, the stance that people should minimize suffering. And for some reason this does not apply to animals? What reason?
Check out Karl Popper’s arguments. I’d link you, but I’m having a hell of a time finding them (which sucks because he was one of my view’s larger influences).
For my points, it’s simply that through any analysis, farming animals is more net utility than not. I actually hold to it by positive Utilitarianism as well as Negative.
First is the utility of people consuming them (if there wasn’t any, everyone would just drop meat-eating in a heartbeat). There is undeniably utility in consuming meat/dairy. In a vacuum, this isn’t everything. Obviously there’s utility in a starving person committing cannibalism. In a counter-vacuum, it’s still not-nothing, since there is arguably negative utility in a plant being eaten (just not much).
Second is the utility in domesticated animals. The alternatives are wild animals or anti-natalism. For the former, there is no question that even the worst case “veal cow with botched slaughter” is better than the best case of wild animals (life of constant starvation and fear, ended slowly and incredibly painfully). As for anti-natalism… I hold with Karl Popper. To exist and feel pain is better than not to exist. Farm animls have plenty of positive-utility moments.
Third is the Utility Monster scenario. HUMANS are Utility Monsters, as compared to animals. This is not to be confused with human exceptionalism. Cows are not planning what to name their grandchildren, waiting for Christmas Dinner. They’re not excited for a delicious meal, slow roasted for 12 hours. The truth is, there is more Utility to 1000 families eating a hamburger or a steak filet than a slaughtered cow living 1 more year, even 10 more years. If one argues we are of equal utility to animals, then I do not see justification that any being should have less utility than any other. And that includes insects and, yes, plants. Either qualities of a species affect utility or they do not. One cannot have their cake and eat it.
So to sum it up… There is no disagreement that agriculture creates net positive utility for humans, right? Well, I have shown that agriculture also creates net positive utility to animals. Disagree or not, even if you could somehow poke holes in some of those points, there is an avalanche of Reason to the idea that a non-vegan world is simply better than a vegan world.
bravo
Gracias.
The issue with veganism is not that there’s no arguments for it (there are some). It’s that there’s plenty of arguments for meat-eating that are just as good… and that so many vegans aren’t willing to take those arguments seriously.
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Please note, I made a few last minute edits you may have missed. I don’t think it matters because you do not appear to have addressed (or understood?) my arguments.
Sorry, I’m being strict in my terminology. I am using “Agriculture” to refer to the husbandry and harvesting of animals for human consumption. For the latter, I would use the term “horticulture”.
I have argued the opposite of this fairly comprehensively. It is bad form to open as if the opposite of my argument is axiomatic. If you are going to concede that my point was valid, then you cannot presume its opposite. If not, you are better off addressing my argument.
Cigarettes DO have some utility. They also have tremendous amounts of negative utility because they cause people to suffer horrific, multi-month-long deaths. My angles and my arguments applied to cigarettes would (correctly) conclude that cigarettes are a terrible thing while STILL defending that meat-eating is a good thing.
There is value in both short- and long-term enjoyment. If you think there is no utility in short-term enjoyment at all, please provide the argument… but please open with a reason why that is even relevant to this discussion.
Just look at relative average stress levels of farm animals compared to humans. And how much they suffer throughout their life. And what percent of their days are good. To quote Martin Luther King Jr. “It does not matter how long you live, but how well you do it.” Their lower consciousness has its advantages as well as disadvantages. But a cow on a farm will not suffer through 3 years of agony and self-awareness of death with metastatic lung cancer because they smoked as a kid.
Also, I’d like to point out that your incredulity is not an effective response.
I agree. Ditto with certain human societies (ever seen homeless tent cities, refugees? Ever heard of a little thing called the Holocaust?). And as with human societies, we should be responsible for improving things. But if THIS is your crux, I would be happy to move forward on the discussion of Industrial Animal Agriculture if you will concede that (for example) free range chicken farming is 100% ethically sound. Otherwise, let’s stick to the topic of agriculture as a whole. If you want to have a chance to argue the ethics of veganism, you need to steelman meat-eating. You’re creating weaknesses in your own arguments by using points that most cattle ranchers already argue.
Of course not. Having cows roam in lush green hills is stupid. They don’t care about the color of the hills. Free range cattle roam around on non-arable land and eat the grasses and weeds that will grow anywhere. I often get to see the cows and pigs I’ll someday eat living pretty damn good lives. I’ve got dairy industry in my family, so I’m not “making shit up”. I’ll re-offer my point above. Agree that some meat eating is ethical and I will happily focus on the topic of industrial farming and where to draw that line. At that point, I’m sure we’ll find some common ground, and some disagreements.
That is its own topic, and short of a magic bullet that doesn’t exist that particular thread can’t put a dent in ethics arguments. I think you either need to decide whether to concede the ethics topic we’ve already started and we’ll pivot to ecology, or stick with the topic at hand.
And this is where you sorta walked into your own magic bullet analysis. Care to provide that magic bullet that dairy and meat will destroy humanity and individuals cutting out dairy/meat will save humanity? The farming industry I consume has the same carbon/methane footprint it had prior to the industrial era. Otherwise, yet again, let’s stick to the topic shall we?
Agriculture refers to both animal and non-animal ag. Hence the prefix “animal” for “animal agriculture”.
“Huge negatives for animals involved” is the reality of industrial agriculture, which provides the vast majority of meat (animal products in general) for human consumption today. To your later point, “free range” is typically what’s referred to as “greenwashing”, where a company has to meet some bare-minimum criteria to get a stamp on their product. E.g., the USDA criteria for “free range” re: eggs:
Re: cigarettes - it should be clear I’m referring to net negative “utility”.
Don’t know what your methodology is for determining this. Separation trauma at birth, confined spaces and health hazards from living in waste are not a formula for stress-free living.
Ecology is not a distinct topic from ethics. Ecological outcomes have pronounced effects on human and animal experience. I alluded to this already.
Estimates on greenhouse gas emissions seem to converge at roughly 20-25% for animal agriculture, with roughly a 10x increase over more efficient plant agriculture. A comparable increase holds for water usage, fertilizer usage, etc., due to the caloric loss intrinsic to producing feed for animals versus consuming plant agriculture products directly. Part of the problem with this interpretation is that, even if you’re only consuming actual “free range”, chickens-walking-around-outdoors-pecking-bugs, cows-roaming-grasslands-nondestructively animal agriculture, the actual vast majority of animal agriculture does not fit this profile. (Side note, it is remarkable how almost everyone you talk to about this only eats the “free range” “humanely produced” animal products, when the vast majority of the products are not). The negative effects of animal ag on animals are less pronounced in non-confined spaces, but still fit the profile of exploitation for human use at negative benefit for humans relative to plant consumption.
Your central point seems to be that the benefit derived from eating animals for humans outweighs negligible negative effects on animals in an isolated best-world case of free range, “humane slaughter” scenarios. I would dispute that it’s a net positive for humans in the first place, and you’re basically putting the actual vast majority of animal agriculture in a special category you get to ignore because, supposedly, there are negligible or no negative effects on the animals that you consume. Which, first off, I doubt, but second, hits the ethical question of killing, which bears mentioning the ethics we apply to humans on these grounds. We do not consider it ethically acceptable to kill a random human walking down the street, of your own volition. Why? Something like, the trauma that their family/friends/acquaintances would endure, and the cost of denying them the rest of their life. For some reason these same points are not held true of animals? You may deny that they experience such trauma, but that would be incorrect. And the cost of denying them the rest of their life is undeniable.
I’m calling it here tbh. I don’t think this is going anywhere beyond here.