It’s almost as though you’re completely disregarding the context and the scope of my previous response because you’re arguing in bad faith.
Yes, I can accept that different things are different and this will sometimes mean that it’s okay to accordingly act differently, but sometimes different things have similarities and you’re here arguing for discriminatory treatment in the context where they’re actually not that different. Whales, lions, sheep and humans alike have a drive for self-preservation. Thus, they should similarly be allowed to live without being killed in cold blood by those who are capable of knowing better than to inflict needless suffering.
I have stated my reasoning again and again. It is on you to provide a justification for the discrepancy you’re here supporting.
there is no reason to suppose eating animals is bad. since it is so normal, both among humans and in the natural world, the burden is on those who propose that we don’t do that.
It’s almost as though you’re completely disregarding the context and the scope of my previous response because you’re arguing in bad faith.
Yes, I can accept that different things are different and this will sometimes mean that it’s okay to accordingly act differently, but sometimes different things have similarities and you’re here arguing for discriminatory treatment in the context where they’re actually not that different. Whales, lions, sheep and humans alike have a drive for self-preservation. Thus, they should similarly be allowed to live without being killed in cold blood by those who are capable of knowing better than to inflict needless suffering.
I have stated my reasoning again and again. It is on you to provide a justification for the discrepancy you’re here supporting.
there is no reason to suppose eating animals is bad. since it is so normal, both among humans and in the natural world, the burden is on those who propose that we don’t do that.
Sure there is: it causes suffering that can easily be avoided by not doing that.