The laws are like this because animal agriculture is also a literal baby crushing machine so harsher laws would basically make animal agriculture impossible.
I didn’t say it sounds better. I’m just suggesting an update of the law in a way that would strongly punish cruelty for entertainment while staying politically acceptable.
I’m trying to understand your reasoning for this. There is billions of animals tortured to death in slaughter houses but you want to change the laws for these few monkeys why?
Because if you believe that every saved animal is worth fighting for then why are you not living in line with those morals when it comes to your food choices?
The laws are like this because animal agriculture is also a literal baby crushing machine so harsher laws would basically make animal agriculture impossible.
Couldn’t we at least make an exception for when the cruelty is for entertainment?
Animal agriculture is for entertainment of the taste buds, not a necessity. So your denominator would not exclude animal agriculture.
“Entertainment” in its usual meaning, like watching something for fun.
It makes no difference to the victim for what purpose you torture and kill them
Does living under deplorable conditions and being killed in a painful way sound better if we say it is for “enjoyment” rather than “entertainment”? 🤔
I didn’t say it sounds better. I’m just suggesting an update of the law in a way that would strongly punish cruelty for entertainment while staying politically acceptable.
I’m trying to understand your reasoning for this. There is billions of animals tortured to death in slaughter houses but you want to change the laws for these few monkeys why?
Because if you believe that every saved animal is worth fighting for then why are you not living in line with those morals when it comes to your food choices?