Ok, so first of all, I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their mind on anything. I don't care what you eat, that's your business, and not what this question is about.
Ok, so, I'm an omnivore (and I'm not changing that) and many times I've heard pet-eating and even cannibalism come up in the debate of the morality of meat, and I'd just like to question this.
Vegans often throw out the idea that eating a cow is the same as eating a dog, as a human, and mechanically this is true, but not in any other way. This ignores the emotional difference.
Why do Vegans make Chik'N and Bac'Un, but not Dog'E and Hyu'Mun? I mean, if it's all the same?
Added (1). Simon: Not well-known to me. I hear "Nokia" and my brain goes "phone". I know nothing about her, or her opinion, and as I am a guy, I am certainly not her. This is not a trolling question, I genuinely want to know what the logic behind this argument is.
I find comparing cows to dogs and humans to fall under "deranged", yet I see Vegans trotting this one out all the time, which is why I am so curious about it, and the reasoning behind it.
Added (2). To add to my point, to make it clear that I'm not trolling, my question regarding "Dog'E and Hyu'Mun" was mentioned to point out that, if it's NOT all the same, then why use pet-eating and cannibalism as an argument?
Read more: Pet-Eating and Cannibalism as point in argument against omnivorism, Vegans please explain the logic?
