dave

Man. You're really fucking this up now. Look. An animal is an animal. Humans are animals. Dogs are animals. Horses are animals. Cows are animals. Okay?

What type of meat do you eat? You said you did. The likely choices are chicken, fish, cow or pig. Okay. So it's likely that you consume, at least occasionally, one or more of those animals.

Now. Of course eating baby children is taboo. At least in our culture. But so is dog. It is all about our perception of the animal. We regard humans higher than we do dogs, and we regard dogs higher than we do cows. Is this making sense?

I sure hope so, because if it does, then maybe you're starting to realize that saying it's "just a different animal" is decidedly <b>not</b> as ridiculous as saying meat eaters should be okay with eating babies. Animals are animals, and our regard for different species undoubtedly differs, but the fact of the matter is, they are still animals. I seriously do not understand how you can be so obtuse on this issue. I don't mean to be insulting, but I seriously am having trouble comprehending how you can possibly make that argument in a serious mood. Are you just fucking around or what?

Okay. Again, not to be insulting at all, but you're not really making sense here.

As we have established, eating meat is not an entertainment-only activity. However, there is no practical usage of a dog fight. Consider that a dog fight is for purely entertainment value, whereas when one slaughters a cow, they actually get some <b>food</b>. Okay. Are we making this connection? Good. Now. Replace the dog fight, pure entertainment, with the action of just walking up to a cow and stabbing it to death - you know, for "entertainment". All we're doing here is a little switcharoo. Cow for dog, human for dog. Got the two situations in mind? Good.

Now. In one situation (this would be the <b>slaughter</b>), we are doing this for food so that our bellies can be full. The meat is being used. The cow is dying, yes, but it is dying for the very real benefit of another. Whether this is right or wrong is beyond classification by the human race - we cannot decide. However, the irrefutable facts are that a) a cow is being killed, and b) another animal is benefitting, in a very real way, from its death.

The second situation, which we will call <b>the cow fight</b>, is quite a bit different, however. A human being is fighting a cow. The human being has a knife, which makes up for its lack of anything else (remember, the human being's asset is its brain, which it uses to discover and make tools) with which it can fight. The cow has a pretty powerful kick. Now, the human being goes up to the cow, stabs the holy fuck out of it, eventually kills it, and walks off with a smile on their face, having just had a great time. He feels as though he's been "entertained". The irrefutable facts of this situation are that a) a cow is being killed, and b) another animal is just getting some jollies from its death.

Now, can you see a difference here? Because if I'm understanding you properly, you can't (hence your usage of the word "parallel"). One is an example of the <b>food chain</b>, and the other is an example of <b>the murder of a cow</b>. They are not the same. Do you believe that it's wrong for a rabbit to eat some grass? Is it wrong for a wolf to eat a rabbit? Is it wrong for a human to eat a cow? Where do you draw the line? Moreover, <b>who are you to decide</b>?