For any anarchist (or any rational, self-disciplined human being) who owns pets and doesn't choose to eat said pet because it provides a source of mutually beneficial companionship, then the natural extension of the argument seems perfectly rational assuming that same person doesn't believe that their household pet has feelings/sentience above or beyond animals slaughtered for food. Said a different way, if you don't eat your pets, why would you eat another animal unless you believe the other animal has less of a right to life? If there is an argument as to why one animal deserves preferential treatment to life then I'd love to hear the ethical argument supporting it.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
when i look at a cow in the eyes, its like how some ppl look into a dogs eyes and they have an emotional attachment. I don't know how ppl can switch off because they think that one kind of animal provides some sensual experience. No experience is worth another beings pain suffering and death.
Salient points, as always @danielshortell