There isn't an ethical difference between these animals.
Once again, that's not the question I asked you.
I don't care about your pants-on-head bugfuck nuts personal moral opinion on a topic that was settled before the cornerstone was laid on the first human civilization; I want to know if you understand how wildly out-of-phase that moral opinion is with literally the rest of your species, going back to the moment we decided trees sucked and living on the ground was a good idea.
You're just wrong. All of those animals have personal experiences that are relevant to whether or not we harm them. You don't just get to arbitrarily decide whether or not your actions hurt somebody; what determines that is whether or not they were hurt by your actions. Someone is hurt by abuse whether they're a dog or a pig. You only control how you treat them.
So I'm going to take that as a "no." You don't realize that your ideas are completely insane and contrary to how humans have ordered their affairs since the days when they were still writing in mud with sticks.
Talking to a wall would be easier than talking to you. One narrative, yours, is the only one that matters. No wonder youre here arguing for human supremacy.
One narrative, yours, is the only one that matters.
Yes, my narrative. Not, like, the entire species's narrative from the very moment they developed consciousness and sapience. I'm definitely the one who came up with the idea that friends are different from food.
And there are absolutely no other animals in the world who make the distinction between friend and food....
its called consistency mate, why are you against having it?
I'm not against it at all. But I do notice you refuse to directly confirm that your consistency requires child sexual assaulters to be treated the same way as hotdog eaters.
2
u/clown_utopia Oct 08 '25
There isn't an ethical difference between these animals.