Thanks bro. I wouldn't even step on a baby chick for that much unless I was very desperate for money and needed life saving surgeries, but it would be easier for me to step on a chad chasing whore with a metal boot instead of an innocent chick in that case.
So animals can't follow our man made social order.. fine. Is that a good enough reason to subject them to unnecessary torture for our taste buds? It's a very speciest approach akin to racism.
No, it is very very inconsistent and no different than the original why save dog and kill pigs argument. Just because you "own" an animal(lol if you can own a sentient being) doesn't mean the animal should get a special treatment.
No. It's not the owners fault that the animal attacked although it's his fault for keeping one as a pet.
No, because orphan kids are humans and they can own property, they already owned their bodies as property, animals can't own property, therefor their bodies aren't their property. Also, kids follow laws and have duties, animals don't.
Laws don't equal morality. Most laws are cucked and shouldn't be followed. That's why animals are more respectable than cucked law abiders.
Laws are literally based on morality, I think you are referring to ethics.
Congrats for what?
If laws were based on morality then every country would have the same laws. Our cucked rape and AoC and tax laws aren't based on morality, they are based on cuckdom. Those who follow those laws without questioning them are lower than animals on the sentience scale.
Morals change with each society, so no, countries wouldn't have the same laws. Ethics are the ones who are objective, morals are subjective.
I hope you never ascend.
If morality can be cucked then morality is useless in determining someone's worth, it actually means you're good at being a sheep and order follower with less sentience. Ethics are a better measurement for someone's worth.
Ethics are better for sure, but laws aren't based on rationality or ethics, thats why most laws are cucked
They shouldn't be followed if you know you won't be caught. Being ethical is more important than following laws cucks wrote.
I mean, I don't follow laws because I agree with them, I just follow them, because I don't think I value my freedom more than anything else. Most people are like that tbh, when they know their freedom will not be prejudiced, they don't care about breaking laws they don't agree with
So a going by that logic it's morally acceptable to kill, murder and torture and retarderd sub50 IQ drooling autist because he can't follow laws and don't have any duties like animals?
In that case it's perfectly justifiable to kill the said animal but the problem here is that that people like you will end up eating 100+ animals every year and you justify it by saying "they shouldn't have rights" well ofcourse I'm not saying animals should be given a right to vote
You keep saying rights almost makes me feel like you mean right to life.
It's not valid now but it was valid 2 centuries ago. My point is not about its validity rather about the morality of it. Few centuries ago it was moral now it's not. Goes to show how fake and man made morality is. Therefore we shouldn't construct our morality around subjective opinions like laws or duty because they keep on changing. Rather it should be like a wall that can withstand generational changes like mathematics.
What do you even mean by that? Property as in what? Birds make their nests it's a property to them. Idk what you're even saying man. It seems like English isn't your first language.
Emotional, weak and petty.I hope you never ascend.
It's not my first language either.
View attachment 452172
What makes you think a child "owned his body as property" and an animal didn't?
Animals run away when they face danger isn't it a good sign that they own their bodies and they want to survive?
An experiment was done on a pig where it was given food in a specific room everyday for a few days and after a few days it was treated with poison gas for a few minutes on that same place. Upon releasing the pig never entered that room and starved itself to death.
So it would rather starve itself than enter that room. That clearly shows how aware they are of danger and how they "own their body" and want to survive like humans.
So a going by that logic it's morally acceptable to kill, murder and torture and retarderd sub50 IQ drooling autist because he can't follow laws and don't have any duties like animals?
Imagine someone killed and ate this Autistic James
View: https://youtu.be/8jrqpn60d4A
Morally inconsistent normies would say "hang the bloody murderer" meanwhile eating their pork sandwich.
In that case it's perfectly justifiable to kill the said animal but the problem here is that that people like you will end up eating 100+ animals every year and you justify it by saying "they shouldn't have rights" well ofcourse I'm not saying animals should be given a right to vote
All I'm saying is that just because we can't subject them to our laws doesn't mean we should torture and kill them.
Your average cow isn't killing humans, we are just cruel bastard who kill them and justify it on laws and duties when it's all about the taste.
A part of me tell me that you wouldn't be engaging in this conversation if animal products tasted awful...but hey you like your steak I guess.
You keep saying rights almost makes me feel like you mean right to life.
You have a very narcissistic view point, it's very common among narcy parents who say "I bought this little bastard to life so I can do whatever I want because he is my son and I'm his father"
How about you just leave the animal alone and not murder it? It's not that hard man.
It's not valid now but it was valid 2 centuries ago. My point is not about its validity rather about the morality of it. Few centuries ago it was moral now it's not. Goes to show how fake and man made morality is. Therefore we shouldn't construct our morality around subjective opinions like laws or duty because they keep on changing. Rather it should be like a wall that can withstand generational changes like mathematics.
I base my morality on a sentient life. Unnecessary killing of a sentient is bad to me. It's logically consistent.
What do you even mean by that? Property as in what? Birds make their nests it's a property to them. Idk what you're even saying man. It seems like English isn't your first language.
I understand your view point more clearly now.
Why do we have to own animals? I can understand a Mongolian tribe owning animals for their survival. I don't see why first worldfags should own animals when it has been proven to have a large carbon footprint. It doesn't make any sense.
I can't possibly see anyone would arrest someone for killing an ant.
No that's not my argument. I'm arguing for a right to life. If the dog was old and miserable then it's acceptable to euthanize it same goes for humans. And it's such a moral grey area man, why not talk about brutally murdering of male chicks in egg industry? I'm against that.
