comparing oppressed people to animals is OK because
Because they're both sentient beings, sharing the planet with us ? creatures capable of feeling ? if you don't need to kill them to survive, you're most definitely killing them for pleasure (indirectly through the "farmers" that bring you your animal products of course). This is not an argument you'll ever win, by the way (despite you trying regularly, and I assumed I'd see you here eventually, it's like catnip at this point to you isn't it ?). Eating animal products when you don't need to is exploitation, period, and is morally wrong.
Why is killing animals when you don't need to to survive somehow morally "better" compared to killing humans ? what the fuck is your criteria for assuming one deserves to live and not the other ?
I agree that vegans have the moral high ground and that consuming animal products is morally wrong. With that said, if you can't see why most people find it distasteful to equate the Holocaust with eating animals, I can't help you. Mind you, I'm not even talking about using the word 'genocide' to refer to animal slaughter, which I can, to some degree, understand from a vegan perspective. But specifically using the word Holocaust—at the very least, I must say I find it in bad taste.
That makes sense, and I agree. I was initially guessing the origin of the post's title, wouldn't be the word I'd choose either.
Even "genocide" is wrong, mind you; it supposes the eventual destruction of the target group as an objective. Current animal exploitation not only tortures and kills, it also makes sure there's always new victims available. A closer parallel may be slavery.
This is Holocaust denial OP deserved to be uninvited
What ? The genocide of said sentient beings is real
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Because they're both sentient beings, sharing the planet with us ? creatures capable of feeling ? if you don't need to kill them to survive, you're most definitely killing them for pleasure (indirectly through the "farmers" that bring you your animal products of course). This is not an argument you'll ever win, by the way (despite you trying regularly, and I assumed I'd see you here eventually, it's like catnip at this point to you isn't it ?). Eating animal products when you don't need to is exploitation, period, and is morally wrong.
Why is killing animals when you don't need to to survive somehow morally "better" compared to killing humans ? what the fuck is your criteria for assuming one deserves to live and not the other ?
I agree that vegans have the moral high ground and that consuming animal products is morally wrong. With that said, if you can't see why most people find it distasteful to equate the Holocaust with eating animals, I can't help you. Mind you, I'm not even talking about using the word 'genocide' to refer to animal slaughter, which I can, to some degree, understand from a vegan perspective. But specifically using the word Holocaust—at the very least, I must say I find it in bad taste.
That makes sense, and I agree. I was initially guessing the origin of the post's title, wouldn't be the word I'd choose either.
Even "genocide" is wrong, mind you; it supposes the eventual destruction of the target group as an objective. Current animal exploitation not only tortures and kills, it also makes sure there's always new victims available. A closer parallel may be slavery.
Removed by mod