You wanna share your opinion as it differs to mine, I’m happy to engage with that. But I am absolutely not interested in whatever tit for tat, nit-picky debate that wants to be.
I’m saying as long as the consumption of animals and animal products is part of the most viable means for satisfying the nutritional debt of the human species, the human psychological need to distinguish between pets and livestock is necessary.
Do we need, or is it right to keep pets? is its own set of moral questions.
I’ll pass.
You wanna share your opinion as it differs to mine, I’m happy to engage with that. But I am absolutely not interested in whatever tit for tat, nit-picky debate that wants to be.
I’m saying as long as the consumption of animals and animal products is part of the most viable means for satisfying the nutritional debt of the human species, the human psychological need to distinguish between pets and livestock is necessary.
Do we need, or is it right to keep pets? is its own set of moral questions.
We’ve had the capacity for feeding the entire population without animal products since before iron.
We’ve had the capacity to do so with an overabundance of calories that the population keeps growing larger since the Haber process was discovered.
Arguing that we should distinguish between animals and livestock until we can live without animal products is incredibly disingenuous.
Until A, no B doesn’t work as an argument when you already have A.
Edit: I’m not the same person you were talking with before.