|
Pretty much what quzah said. It's not "apples and oranges" because one is raised and one isn't. I even stated before that one not being raised strictly for killing is easier to justify to many because at least the animals live a free life until they're killed. And you're getting all smarmy with "Thanks for playing" when you really don't have a point at all. Your comparision is stupid. Whether or not they were raised for food doesn't matter; the fact that they end up dead in the long run is the issue. Most groups fighting this don't want dolphins killed <b>at all</b>. It's not "we don't want wild dolphins being killed". They consider dolphins semi-intelligent creatures that, for more than one reason, should not be killed.
Stop being so fucking smarmy and try to read what others are saying instead of dismissing them outright and going "Thanks for playing". We've tried to read your post, it does <b>not</b> make sense, and I asked you to clarify. You come back with "this is A STUPID FUCKING THING TO BRING UP BY WAY OF COMPARISON" and quzah and I cannot possibly fathom how this is a STUPID FUCKING THING TO BRING UP BY WAY OF COMPARISON - because it's not. At the end of the day, animals got slaughtered and eaten. What's the difference? How does raising the animal make it "more better" to kill? How exactly is his comparison not valid if the end result is that animals die?
|