- Reaction score
- 333
Sure its Irrelevant. They're people's pets. A cat is meant to be a pet, friend and companion and not a meal. Same for the dogs
The idea that a cat is "meant" to be a pet and that a cow is "meant" to be food is nothing more than a product of culture, upbringing and social conditioning. There are also people for whom culture and upbringing dictates that cats are a food source. Does that mean that cats are "meant" to end up on the dinner table? Your argument is equally ridiculous.
Anyway, It simply isn't acceptable a cat to be served as a meal for humans. And there isn't a lot of meat on a cat really.
You assert that it is unacceptable but your only basis for this is that it is in our culture and upbringing to consider it unacceptable or taboo. If cats were universally seen as a food source in 50 years, would it then suddenly be OK to eat them?
uh uglier animals? Btw: I dont like when any animal be killed no matter ugly or not. I said it before.
Right. Except you don't seem to mind cows being slaughtered for food half as much as you mind cats being subjected to the same fate. You could at least treat animals equally.
Cows other animals are not ugly but i said before "cows always has been food for us,"
and sure there is moar meet to feed a human. Isn't it?
So what? The status quo by itself isn't evidence that something is more ethically acceptable than the alternatives. By the same reasoning as you are using, we can reach the conclusion that rape, murder and violence are more acceptable simply because they are widespread.
The fact that cows can provide more meat than cats is irrelevant. It is not always possible to raise a herd of cattle. Sometimes it simply makes more sense to use cats as a food source.