881
This (rule)s
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
Yes we do
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Oct 2023
881 points (100.0% liked)
196
16458 readers
1765 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
The sheep might be an oof depending on context. But seems fine otherwise. They seem happy
Well, some people prefer dogs, some prefer cats and some prefer sheeps... ๐
Yeah but can sheep really consent, without a massive power dynamic
I really don't want to be arguing a pro-bestiality point here and I have no clue how one would go about the act. But I think a sheep would be able to hurt you pretty good if it wasn't okay with what is happening, same as a horse for example.
You guys need to calm down. Maybe the guy wants to have a steak, but he also wants the meat to be as fresh as possible.. ๐ He is also making sure that the sheap is as relaxed/respected as possible, so he put it on the front seat. Stressless meat I've heard tastes better.. ๐ ๐ ๐
Unnecessarily killing or harming a sentient individual is wrong, full stop
under what ethical system?
Holy shit I knew McAfee Antivirus man didn't die in that Spanish prison
Shhh. You know nothing.
Consent requires sentience so no animal can consent regardless of power dynamic.
i don't think one has anything to do with the other.
If you can't think then you don't make decisions, basically.
they are unrelated.
Sheep are sentient. You probably mean sapient.
Looks like the definition has changed in the last decade, then, because it used to exclude children younger than 5.
Well it means able to perceive or feel things
Well at that point we'd have to define perception.
Hence why veganism is a moral obligation to animals. It's indefensible to kill or exploit/harm an animal without their consent (which they can't give), and which clearly isn't in their best interests
That's a stupid argument, just by having sentience doesn't mean we have any moral obligations to our food sources. There are plenty of incentives to human being's health and society by reducing meat consumption, why would you choose such a weak reason instead?
it makes no sense to discuss consent from non-human animals. do you ask plans for consent before cutting them? or doors for consent before opening them and putting your whole body through them?
It's an oof because it shows, yes, we could live happily coexisting with animals without unnecessarily exploiting, enslaving, abusing and killing them for commodities and entertainment, which we have alternatives for. The future is vegan/plant-based and animal rights are respected in a progressive world.