This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
deadgerbil · 22-25
I guess you can make that argument that it's not, since they are owning an animal that requires the death of other animals that the person is normally against and if people wanted to reduce the suffering of animals, lowering the amount of pet cats would mean less of a demand for fish, chicken, etc.
It really depends on how extreme the person would want to be. Some idiots take it so far that they would rather have their cat malnourished instead of being normal and giving them a normal diet
It really depends on how extreme the person would want to be. Some idiots take it so far that they would rather have their cat malnourished instead of being normal and giving them a normal diet
@deadgerbil
That's where i fall on the matter i think. If your pet requires you to participate in a system which you believe to be unethical then it must be unethical to own that pet.
That's where i fall on the matter i think. If your pet requires you to participate in a system which you believe to be unethical then it must be unethical to own that pet.
deadgerbil · 22-25
@Pikachu would you call for people to avoid getting pet cats and other pets that require meat?
@deadgerbil
Maybe in the future but not until and unless we manage to stop humans from eating animals to the greatest extent possible because animal food is often using byproducts of the animals slaughtered for human consumption.
Maybe in the future but not until and unless we manage to stop humans from eating animals to the greatest extent possible because animal food is often using byproducts of the animals slaughtered for human consumption.