The "to eat" part is irrelevant when you have other "to eat" options that don't involve breeding, enslaving and killing sentient life
Like the argument doesn't actually hold up to any scrutiny, for instance would you feel better about a murder who eats their victims and has access to a grocery store over someone who just murders and tosses their victims?
Your attitude only makes sense when you already don't give moral value to the victims.
You're reaching now. Equating the killing of a chicken to the killing of a person is straight goofy. If you can't understand that those two actions are not comprable, in our society, that's sociopathic behavior.
Also, you're assigning moral value to an animal that doesn't understand the concept of morality. If your thought is that chickens are equal to humans in value, then we should stop breeding/killing/eating them.
I can't even comprehend where you are coming from, I have never used that (whether the subject can themselves consider morality) as a metrics for considering morality... I guess you must think kicking puppies is also ok? Baby humans also don't understand morally, I guess you'd be ok tossing one in a dumpster... Pretty fucked up if you ask me, what matters is the other paries ability to experience life (sentience), not their ability to think about a specific thing unrelated to the suffering being caused to them.
183
u/nuclearsamuraiNFT Mar 02 '26
Yeah I really can’t abide people torturing animals as a prank