[naasking]

> perpetual animal genocide is necessary.

Meat as a staple food is literally not genocide, because an actual animal genocide would literally lead to famine. Making silly comparisons like this doesn't make your position sound reasonable.

[Forbo]

Does rephrasing it to "animal war crimes" make it any better?

[naasking]

Not at all. What's the war? Do animals even have a concept of war? Don't two parties need to know they're at war for it to qualify as war? Humans aren't killing other animals because animals are a threat to their way of life or their values.

Maybe you want to call meat eating a moral crime, and you can make that argument, but you keep pulling in these tangential human-centric concepts like "war" and "genocide" in an attempt to make the normalized meat diet seem as morally perverse as possible, but I think the hyperbole is doing the opposite. If your position is the rational one, you shouldn't come across as irrational.

[Forbo]

No, humans are enslaving and torturing multiple species because they taste good. And I'm the irrational one? Because I value not causing suffering over personal pleasure? If that's irrational, then fuck whatever is considered rational. It IS morally reprehensible. Just because they aren't human doesn't mean they don't suffer. If there were a group of humans that were perpetually imprisoned, tortured, and eventually murdered, we would call it what it is: genocide. It fits the definitions laid out by the UN.