Video

Nothing to do with PETA.

@@WilyFilms - Good to know. 🙂

They would have ripped apart your religious beliefs to reveal the absurdity of basing your ethics on stories invented centuries before science revealed the Abrahamic religions were bullshit. For a start, humans predate livestock (and man was not made from mud).

@@WilyFilms In that case, I cannot wait to meet those aliens to learn right from wrong.

You shouldn't rely on religion to tell you what's right and wrong. You're basing your ethics on the ethical relativism that deemed enslaving someone from a different religion and a man (in his 50s) shagging his preteen wife were fine.

Please read the description.

He wasn't limited to plucking only one hair per night.

Taking chickens as an example. They have been known to live over 20 years. It's just that very few are given the chance because they are encouraged to lay eggs continuously and/or slaughtered for food. Such a misunderstanding may be due to you being unaware that taking eggs from hens significantly lessens their lifespan. But I love that you qualify your estimates with "if nothing kills it" as if that's how we judge the lifespan of domesticated animals (like dogs), as well as the idea that killing something after 42 days might be justifiable if it only lives up to ten years (so you're graciously allowing it to live 1% of its lifespan).

Meat is beneficial believe it or not.

Please read the description.

Anyone who makes this kind of argument knows well they're presenting a false equivalency. I will always have more respect for people who simply admit to liking the taste meat rather than the people who come up with BS rationalisations they try to pass off a moral argument to make themselves sound smart.

@@WilyFilms Just because you listed the most common arguments against Veganism in the description does not invalidate their being repeated in the comments. They are all valid points since Veganism is built on a false moral premise that is not only unnatural but illogical.

I just didn't realise anyone would be stupid enough to try to make the same argument after its absurdity was explained in the description. I bet you distinguish between different orders of mammal and are just the average stupid twat desperately trying to justify their killing truly sentient creatures. Five hundred years ago you would have been calling abolitionism unnatural and illogical. Good luck to you.

Their planet is similar to Earth with one dominant species. They stopped eating animals a long time ago and assumed any similar species would have done so too.

Yes. That's exactly what they are. Vaginas.

Please read the description.

@@WilyFilms But you're failing to take the alien perspective. _They_ aren't going to see your distinction between animals and plants because we know that _they_ do not have animals and plants. As I say, it's not that I missed your point or don't appreciate your effort, but for some reason TV-style SF (in which genre this falls) routinely denies the theory of evolution, and … well, we shouldn't be gracing it with the name “science fiction”, should we? And again, I take your point in the description that eating fruit is interspecies oral and not murder, but the question your sketch raises is _what is the alien perspective on this?_ and you have not addressed it seriously at all (which is fine if this is comedy but arguably a failure if your point is serious). _You_ may be confident about your cows and your cowslips, but _they_ are just as likely to be going, ok, I can see that you can argue the ethicality of raising your own kind for food, but how do you justify killing trees to make buildings? Do _they_ think that the guy on the right is smarter than a pine tree? Why? Parochial issues, you see.

Unfortunately, your whole premise is based on a mistunderstanding.

If you recognise wild animals are crude why would you choose to copy them? Please read the description for more.

@@WilyFilms I understand that some content can be sensible to many people, and dull their perception of argument. When we feed, we do not copy the other reasons why animals kill. I eat meat, but I do not kill for territorial dispute, to release some testosterone, to bang a mom or to have fun. I only kill to eat. It would be messed up to eat with the food still alive. And no, I do not wish to stop eating meat. I'm an omnivorous species and I intend to remain that way.

Did you read the description? The point is you choose to copy one animal killing behaviour (when you have the choice not to) but claim all other animal killing behaviours are beneath you. It's hypocritical. You're unaware that you're a product of ethical relativism. Many (most Russians) people still think that killing for territory is fine. Again, they are the product of ethical relativism. Please look up what "omnivorous" actually means. You choose to inflict suffering on animals. I choose not to. Good luck to you.

None. But >80 billion land animals are killed each year for food. Animal agriculture is also the number one cause of habitat loss. Do some research before embarrassing yourself.

Please read the description.