Follow

It is morally okay to slaughter dogs for meat or leather. Non-human animals have no rights whatsoever. The whole "dogs are smart" argument is bullshit. Especially when you take into account that pigs are smarter than dogs yet nobody, except for vegetarians and vegans bats an eye when they are used for meat consumption. Also pigs are sometimes used as pets and pet pig owners literally don't care that other pigs are being eaten.

· · Web · 7 · 1 · 2

I didn't mention it earlier, but it is also morally okay to slaughter cats for meat and leather too. Kill any non-humans animals as you like.

In fact, I think the best way to solve the stray pet problem is to just convert them to meat and leather. It will keep our streets safe while boosting the economy!

@xianc78 I don't really have any moral problem with people eating any kind of animal as long as it's not human.

Also most animals can be primarily used as a pet.

As long as my pet isn't being eaten I don't really care.

@histoire Too bad. Also, if you have a leather product made in China, chances are it was made from dog leather.

@xianc78 Cute things are not supposed to be eaten, that's why @waifu is a monster for eating Capybara. That also means you can eat as many shitbulls as you please.
image.png
@Kerosene @xianc78 @waifu rodents aren't cute
therefore, capybara should be eaten
probably not a lot of meat on them
especially compared to large rodents like new york city sewer rats
@skylar @xianc78 @waifu Haitimaxxing, tummy wummy full of jewtamins. On my kike-snack-core arc, foreskin regeneration-pilled.
@Kerosene @xianc78 @waifu i will eat journalist and politician meat before bugs
take the ashleypill
@waifu @xianc78 Nooo, you can't just steal my posts and use them against me :soymad:
Counterpoint: Eating any animal is unethical. It is equally evil to eat a dog or a pig and while the hypocritical double standard in which people accept one evil while disapproving of the other is wrong, that is not an excuse to indulge in and accept both evils.

@Alex All living organisms exist at the expense of another.

Do you seek to minimize or maximize the harm you cause?

@Alex Both, it's natural to harm and help any number of organisms.

In the end, right and wrong actions can only exist in a mind complex enough to understand morally.

We as a species are our own judge and Jerry.

In this era of history eating animals is fine.

In the next era it won't be acceptable.

I live closely to our worlds Overton windows around morality, but that doesn't mean I believe in it. I simply have to follow it to socialize with other people.

I believe it is best to try minimizing harm done when possible. While it is impossible to truly live ethically or do no harm, it's best to try cutting down on it where we can. If you have two choices and one causes a lot of harm and the other causes a little harm, then all else being equal the latter should be chosen. I can cut out meat and still live a comfortable life without inconveniencing myself much, I can choose not to live a lifestyle I know is causing pointless suffering to innocent creatures for minimal benefit to me. Simple little changes can reduce the harm we cause, and they might not change much in the grand scheme of things, but they do reduce our involvement in the evils of the world. It keeps the soul clean.
As you said, we're our own judges and jury. The only person we know for sure has any power to judge our soul is ourself. The knowledge that I contribute to what I view as one of the world's greatest evils weighs heavily on my soul, so I seek to minimize that contribution.

@Alex @Mr_NutterButter If you want to minimize harm, veganism is NOT the way to go. Veganism actually kills more animals than meat eating.

consumerfreedom.com/2023/01/pe

Peta is not an animal rights organization and literally nothing they say about anything can be trusted. Peta is a scam organization thats sole purpose for existing is to trick people into giving them money. It's the animal rights equivalent of the komen foundation.

The argument that vegan or vegetarian diets harm more animals than meat based diets is fundamentally rooted in the idea that you need farms to grow food for humans, but that all farm animals magically sustain themselves by drawing nutrients from the aether. If you compare the amount of farmland required to grow vegetables to feed humans to the amount of space required in a factory farm to contain animals, then yes, a farm growing produce will take up more space than a farm that's merely containing animals. This ignores that those animals need to eat, too, and you expend far more produce feeding an animal than you would need if you fed it to a human directly.

@waltercool I heard of some writer who wrote in his will to have limited editions of his books published with leather covers made from him.

@xianc78 It's good to have societal norms that go beyond beyond basic morality. I'm glad a neighbor brought my dog back when it jumped a fence when I was a kid instead of barbequing it.

@xianc78 brilliant idea, as if people never fucked up the ecosystem by eradicating a particular animal only for birds or vermin then to consume everything and then some more because their natural predators disappeared

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Game Liberty Mastodon

Mainly gaming/nerd instance for people who value free speech. Everyone is welcome.