I see you are resistant to processing this very simple fact, but it's okay, I can break it down for you.
There are 2.7 million tonnes of raw white-tailed deer. There are 390 million tonnes of humanity across 8.3 billion individuals. Lets generously assume every fucking gram of those deer are edible and yield about 1,500 kcal per kg. That gives humanity food for LESS THAN SIX FUCKING HOURS.
You just wiped out every white-tailed deer. A couple hours after that, you've wiped out every deer on Earth.
Now what the fuck do we do? Deer make up one fifth to one quarter of all wild land mammal biomass, and you just ate it in a fucking afternoon. Keep eating wild animals and there are ZERO wild animals left at the end of the next day. Do the fucking math.
Why don't you read the original comment again and decide whether you want to respond to THAT, or if you are going to respond to the voices in your head a second time.
Jesus doesn't offer a realistic model of compassionate love. Christians aren't really supposed to emulate Jesus. I know that's the schtick, but it's not the reality. Jesus exists to give Christians opportunities for moral self-licensing and self-stereotyping, which is the moral candy alternative to actually being a good person. He performs miracles and displays superhuman feats of equanimity (when he's not cursing figs) not because we are supposed to actually emulate him, which would be impossible, he's fucking GOD in a fake mustache, but because we are supposed to psychologically transfer his good qualities to ourselves by our association with him. That's why Jesus stops at telling you what to do, and is silent about how to do it. He knows you're not really going to do it.
Compassionate love is hard. It's not just a matter of deciding to do it, you have to know how, and you have to practice. Other religions and creeds that preach and teach you how to practice compassionate love don't do so for abstract moral reasons. Compassionate love serves the person who practices it.
Christianity offers people a way to feel like a good person without having to do anything, and Jesus doesn't have very much of meaning to say about compassionate love.
While Jesus is an authority and primary source on a number of things, He is neither of those things for compassionate love. I think in this decontextualized instance, "thy neighour" actually has a specific meaning that is being stripped, possibly referring to the other tribes of Israel, such as in his parable about the good Samaritan that people commonly misunderstand. I wouldn't be willing to draw much from it without a much deeper reading.
I'm not making a dogmatic argument, I'm making a much more grounded claim about psychology and spirituality. Compassionate love is a real thing that we know stuff about.
It just sounds unfamiliar. It's perfectly grammatical, comprehensible, and avoids the ambiguities I deal with speaking with and about singular "theys" ten times every fucking day. In the realm of neopronouns, you're not going to find one better.
Compassionate love does not require kindness and generosity in the way you mean those words. It does not require making yourself vulnerable to danger, it does not require giving material or emotional support. You should still be able to recognize and respond to the humanity in a flawed person.
Cattle, pigs, and chickens are individuals. Each is a particular someone: a living being with their own body, perspective, experiences, preferences, fears, habits, relationships, and continued interest in what happens to them.
It does not mean they are human, or that their minds work exactly like human minds. It means they are not morally interchangeable objects. It means they have moral worth as individuals.
Regardless of whether you agree that they are individuals, you appear to be saying that you think it is morally acceptable to commit needless cruelty, violence, torture and atrocity against animals. Is that your position?
I could not have been more neutral. I simply stated facts. If you find them offensive, I would examine the reasons.
I certainly didn't call anyone childish names.
People are concerned about buying Canadian because they want to do what seems to be the right thing. Trade in another individual's body is never the right thing. It is always wrong to treat an individual as a means rather than as an end.
The experiences of animals are real and matter. Their suffering is identical in nature to your own. The animals we create are morally equivalent to our own children, and are owed exactly the same unconditional love and protection.
I see you are resistant to processing this very simple fact, but it's okay, I can break it down for you.
There are 2.7 million tonnes of raw white-tailed deer. There are 390 million tonnes of humanity across 8.3 billion individuals. Lets generously assume every fucking gram of those deer are edible and yield about 1,500 kcal per kg. That gives humanity food for LESS THAN SIX FUCKING HOURS.
You just wiped out every white-tailed deer. A couple hours after that, you've wiped out every deer on Earth.
Now what the fuck do we do? Deer make up one fifth to one quarter of all wild land mammal biomass, and you just ate it in a fucking afternoon. Keep eating wild animals and there are ZERO wild animals left at the end of the next day. Do the fucking math.
Why don't you read the original comment again and decide whether you want to respond to THAT, or if you are going to respond to the voices in your head a second time.