I didn’t say it sounds better. I’m just suggesting an update of the law in a way that would strongly punish cruelty for entertainment while staying politically acceptable.
I’m trying to understand your reasoning for this. There is billions of animals tortured to death in slaughter houses but you want to change the laws for these few monkeys why?
Because if you believe that every saved animal is worth fighting for then why are you not living in line with those morals when it comes to your food choices?
You’re arguing to exclude animal agriculture from laws banning animal abuse which makes it seem like you consume their products which means you pay for them to abuse animals.
I’m not arguing to exclude animal agriculture from laws about animal abuse. Here’s what I’m saying:
Making the law very strict in a way that would make animal agriculture impossible, or its products too expensive, would be politically impossible. People would oppose such changes.
But if you make a special case where cruelty just for the sake of cruelty, for entertainment, would be severly punished, I think that would be very much acceptable. I don’t imagine that people would oppose that. And that’s a win we can take.
The bar for “animal abuse” remains unfortunately low for most industries, but we take every win we can get.
That doesn’t prevent us from continuing to educate people about the realties of human agriculture, and to make people think about their impact on sentient beings’ wellbeing and suffering.
Does living under deplorable conditions and being killed in a painful way sound better if we say it is for “enjoyment” rather than “entertainment”? 🤔
I didn’t say it sounds better. I’m just suggesting an update of the law in a way that would strongly punish cruelty for entertainment while staying politically acceptable.
I’m trying to understand your reasoning for this. There is billions of animals tortured to death in slaughter houses but you want to change the laws for these few monkeys why?
Because if you believe that every saved animal is worth fighting for then why are you not living in line with those morals when it comes to your food choices?
Well, I’ll take any protection of living beings I can get.
What is problematic about my food choices? I think they’re generally in line with my morals.
You’re arguing to exclude animal agriculture from laws banning animal abuse which makes it seem like you consume their products which means you pay for them to abuse animals.
I’m not arguing to exclude animal agriculture from laws about animal abuse. Here’s what I’m saying:
And I don’t consume animal products.
animals aren’t tortured to death in slaughterhouses. they are killed in compliance with humane slaughter laws.