I didn’t say it sounds better. I’m just suggesting an update of the law in a way that would strongly punish cruelty for entertainment while staying politically acceptable.
I’m trying to understand your reasoning for this. There is billions of animals tortured to death in slaughter houses but you want to change the laws for these few monkeys why?
Because if you believe that every saved animal is worth fighting for then why are you not living in line with those morals when it comes to your food choices?
You’re arguing to exclude animal agriculture from laws banning animal abuse which makes it seem like you consume their products which means you pay for them to abuse animals.
“Entertainment” in its usual meaning, like watching something for fun.
It makes no difference to the victim for what purpose you torture and kill them
This has no relation to the meaning of “entertainment” I’m using.
Does living under deplorable conditions and being killed in a painful way sound better if we say it is for “enjoyment” rather than “entertainment”? 🤔
I didn’t say it sounds better. I’m just suggesting an update of the law in a way that would strongly punish cruelty for entertainment while staying politically acceptable.
I’m trying to understand your reasoning for this. There is billions of animals tortured to death in slaughter houses but you want to change the laws for these few monkeys why?
Because if you believe that every saved animal is worth fighting for then why are you not living in line with those morals when it comes to your food choices?
Well, I’ll take any protection of living beings I can get.
What is problematic about my food choices? I think they’re generally in line with my morals.
You’re arguing to exclude animal agriculture from laws banning animal abuse which makes it seem like you consume their products which means you pay for them to abuse animals.