Wow, did you just try to move the goal posts there? My point is that the situation is different because these are PETS THAT GOT STOLEN. You don't get to re-frame my point and the pretend you answered with another set of question.
Just accept it, it's different to steal pets and murder them than to raise cattle and then eat said cattle. It's not a hard thing to accept.
Why does how the animals were raised matter to the morality of torturing them? Again, if you wouldn't say it was acceptable to raise dogs from birth for slaughter, what's the point of raising this as an argument
YokoGeri posted...
Did you just try to re-frame my point again and pretend to "answer" it with a set of other questions?
I never said that "profit" was noble. Show me where I said "profit is noble". Am I seeing a pattern here? Will you keep going around my points, re-framing the points (moving the goalposts, strawmanning) and answering with a set on different questions?
Do you have justification for your position or not? Why would profit morally justify torture of other animals besides dogs?
YokoGeri posted...
Ah, so you're finally getting honest here. Your motivator was the "fuck western culture" angle. Ok, that makes more sense. Kudos for finally getting honest.
I could see how someone could read that argument if they were illiterate. not what anyone in this topic has actually said though, unfortunately for you.YokoGeri posted...
So, if in a specific culture it was considered admirable and high to beat the shit out of babies and torture them and then drink their blood while they're alive, you would be arguing in favor of that here? Got it.
I am NOT referring to any culture or specific cultural context in my point, my point is the biological and evolutionary bond between dogs and humans, not cultural context. The dog doesn't give a shit if you say "ni hao" or "konichiwa" or "hello", or whether you use chopsticks or forks or your hands, he still secretes "happy hormones' when he sees humans, he is still hard wired to seek human companionship even above that of other dogs, and it still understands stuff such as what a smile is or what pointing with a finger is. "Fuck the west" isn't a factor here.
"Fuck everyone but the west" seems to be the factor here, since you don't seem to care much about the "hApPy HoRmOnEs" or smiles from animals that other cultures value.
YokoGeri posted...
Aaaaaaaandd the goal post moving and pretending to answer my question with a question continues.
I can show you hundreds of instances showing the existence of dogs that lead blind people or serve as attack-detecting dogs (e.g. diabetic attack) or dogs that serve in search and rescue missions, or dogs that fight other animals to defend their humans. It's a lack of common sense to ask me to prove those things exist. I asked YOU to show me a good number of cases where pigs do the same. Come on, I'll wait.
I used bold to emphasize my points again, which you could not answer and instead tried to reframe. Good luck.
Asking you for sources is not goal post moving. You can cry all you want, but ultimately if you can't actually source research that contradicts my earlier sources demonstrating pig's ability to form social bonds with humans, you're doing nothing but making a spectacle of yourself and wasting breath. ---