nah i think it's social categories, not moral ones. Cool i've deconstructed the categories of "pet animal" and "food animal" and think that if you want to keep a holstein as a pet or raise cats as livestock that's a little weird (historically, culturally, and logistically) but not some great sin just because the animals are flipped around.

people keep lizards and weird bugs as non-traditional pets too, maybe it's easier to see compared to mammals that the thing that's special about a pet is that it's a pet, not the species.

[–] MattsAlt@hexbear.net 5 points 1 year ago (6 children)

No, the thing that is special about all of them is that they're living creatures that can experience pain and have desires to live in their natural environments

Your example isn't doing any favors here. It's honestly more concerning that all that matters to you is the label you assign to a being that gives its life worth. You're explicitly acknowledging anything could be a pet that is meaningful to someone but some just get the shit end of the stick and are killed after a lifetime of torture instead

[–] JohnBrownNote@hexbear.net 3 points 1 year ago

is special about all of them

this is about interrogating why people think pets are different from livestock, something common to mammals (and talking about desires gets a little weird, but anyway) isn't going to be the difference between them.

You're explicitly acknowledging anything could be a pet that is meaningful to someone but some just get the shit end of the stick and are killed after a lifetime of torture instead

yes. although to slide in part of another comment i saw pop up while typing this

If it's purely the label of pet, we get back to the comment [queermunist] replied to

i think it's the social relation itself rather than the label being a talisman. We even attach to inanimate objects the same way sometimes.

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (10 replies)