So I take it you're pro-life? Or is that only for chickens?

@gentoobro @VeganMemes Correct response. But I could flip it on it's head.
Are you pro-animal-life? Or do only human (fetuses) deserve life?

Correct, only humans deserve life. Animals are resources for us to use as we need.

@gentoobro @VeganMemes kill yourself

The anti-human reveals itself.

@gentoobro @VeganMemes retard

@gentoobro @VeganMemes
>anti-human-supremacy == anti-human
This is the kind of "logic" woketards use when they say that white people should feel constantly ashamed and flagellate themselves because slavery etc
And the kind of "logic" far-rightoid whites use when they promote atrocities against nonwhites while simultaneously whining about anti-white racism

@Hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net
I believe we should treat animals as well as we can, all else being equal.
That said, there is nothing wrong with acknowledging animals and humans are separate categories with different considerations. I would go as far as to say refusing to acknowledge this is very anti-human.
Nobody seriously argues that house pets should be illegal or that they should have a right to vote.
It is anti-human to prioritize quality-of-life of animals at the expense of human lives.
It's also anti-human to argue human rights are no more important than animal rights / conditions.
I would argue that it is cruel and insane to treat animals as nothing more than resources. The natural world is complex and requires more stewardship and finesse than many would consider.
There's a reason they have people focused so much on the ethics of eating animals rather than experimenting on them.
@gentoobro@shitpost.cloud @VeganMemes@veganism.social

>It is anti-human to prioritize quality-of-life of animals at the expense of human lives.
How was I doing that? Or do you mean gentoobro's interpretation of the OP?

@Hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net
I didn't think you were, but one could take a strong "anti-human-supremacy" stance that absolutely blurs into anti-human directions. I was just outlining where I see the boundaries.

@gabriel
Because the wording in your original response could've been better: humans aren't bred on industrial scale that is why they should be treated differently — this is what you mean, at least that's the way I see it.
There are ways to go from here: one might say that animals should not be bred on industrial scale either — and you might agree noting that this should not be done at the cost of sacrificing human lives, that's reasonable IMO.
@Hyolobrika

@m0xee@social.librem.one

humans aren't bred on industrial scale that is why they should be treated differently

You've misunderstood my point entirely, I also brought up animal testing. I'm not pro animal-suffering. The point is that we agree that a great deal of animal mistreatment is for economic reasons. This is why I felt like responding because as I said, merely treating living beings as a resource to be extracted is a problem to be resolved.
I'm just reasserting that humans and animals are different and have different ethical considerations. I don't see why this is controversial at all, except for the fact that a great deal of people are immersed in anti-human propaganda. Which is why I also felt the need to expand on the other side of the discussion, because many people are letting their own self-hatred bleed into their policy decisions.
@Hyolobrika@social.fbxl.net

@gabriel
I don't think that I misunderstood you at all. And I think that different groups of people could even come to agreement here, or at least find an acceptable middle ground — but society is so radicalised that they only go for extreme opinions opinions, I think you agree with me on this one.
@Hyolobrika