[hjek]

> No, the alternative is never being alive.

Interesting. If we accept this argument -- that one who has brought someone else into existence is allowed to use lethal force on them (although "gently") -- because otherwise this someone wouldn't be in existence; then wouldn't we then also have to allow human parents to euthanise their children?

> And death on a farm is usually much more humane than death in nature.

Non-human animals are usually transported in trucks or on trains for many hours or days on their way to the slaughterhouse, with little access to food and water, under conditions you surely wouldn't want to travel.

Regardless, if we ignore that, and assume the trip to the slaughterhouse is 100% painless, would you still want someone to give you a "humane" death at the time of their choosing? Often animals are gassed; and I wonder how the same method of causing someone's death can be "humane" when applied to non-humans, but not (and here I'm of course making an assumption on your behalf and might be wrong) when done to humans?

[toasterlovin]

Humane is perhaps a poor word choice on my part.

But, no, I do not consider animals to be morally equivalent to humans, so I am okay having a different moral system for animals. And I, personally, would rather live to be executed than never get a chance to be alive. Life is precious. I think we forget that. Here’s something that will perhaps drive home just how precious it is. Almost every black American is the descendant of people who thought it was A) worth living in cruel and brutal bondage, and B) worth bringing children into such a life.

[hjek]

> Life is precious. I think we forget that.

Life is precious. So why do we allow suffering and killing to please our taste buds?

While existing life is precious, do you also believe that not-yet-existing life of a calf is so precious, that we need to forcefully inseminate cows at the highest possible rate their bodies can handle?

If life is that sacred, do you support doing that to human women, too? Because otherwise we'd be acting unfairly to all the unborn children who would otherwise "never get a chance to be alive", right? If we don't do that we'll take away the life of millions of hypothetical humans, right?

> But, no, I do not consider animals to be morally equivalent to humans, so I am okay having a different moral system for animals.

This is somewhat agreeable. Non-humans are not equivalent to humans, and therefore it would be non-sense to argue that dogs should have the right to vote, and pigs should be allowed drivers license. They are so different from humans that they lack the capacity to do any of this.

However, many mammals (dogs, cats, cows, pigs, horses) can feel pain and distress and react to it in a way very similar to humans, by screaming and wrenching and sweating, by trying to escape. Why should their interest in not feeling pain be considered?

If we are OK to just say that we have a "different moral system" for a anyone who is not a member of our species -- regardless of what capacities they may have -- then surely it's also OK to have a "different moral system" for anyone who is of a different gender, or different race, or different nationality than ours, isn't it?

> Almost every black American is the descendant of people who thought it was A) worth living in cruel and brutal bondage, and B) worth bringing children into such a life.

Is your point that life is so precious that it's fine to enslave animals (both human and non-human) because even when someone is living under horrid conditions, it is still "worth bringing children into such a life" and "worth living in cruel and brutal bondage", and that makes it somehow justifiable?