• naevaTheRat@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    compared to never existing at all.

    You may want to look into the repugnant conclusion. That path of reasoning is very flawed.

    Do you mean to say you don’t think chickens have signs of sentience? I’m not following that last thing. You would be completely happy to torture them if that was so, or rather it would be impossible to torture them in the same way it is impossible to torture a rock.

    • Wilzax@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      No. Torture deliberately inflicts pain without providing any benefit. It is only suitable for use against sentient creatures who understand that compliance message the torture will stop. To do that to something that just thinks you’re killing it and can’t understand why is basically the definition of animal abuse. Non-sentience doesn’t make animal abuse okay, it only makes swift and painless killings of those animals okay.

      But I’m just rehashing what I’ve already said. You’re trying to put words in my mouth. Like it or not, existing as livestock is not torture, and consuming the products of those livestock is not unethical. You just want to have someone to think less of and you choose to pretend that meat eaters are just as bad as murderers so you can place yourself as morally and ethically superior to them. Because at the end of the day, you care more about your ego than whether your campaigns actually reduce suffering of real animals that are actually being tortured in factory farms.