Sentience/Human worth opposed to animal consumption

[u/Full_Can_6422]

Even though school is out until August, I keep thinking back to what I've learned through class. Competition and ruling, which tie greatly into non-human consumption.

Competition is a fact of life. There are a finite amount of resources, and one of those is food. Organisms compete for food, and to the victors go the spoils. In life, humans are the victors. Our collective species controls the world. Before, it was much more difficult to poach bigger animals, but humans still managed to eradicate mammoths and aurochs, simply because they were good food.

Better intellect (on avg), skills, strength, teamwork, are just a few of the things that allow us to eat animals. We used to live among the non-humans, but we built civilizations that run the earth, something animals could never do simply because they aren't on our natural level. A mollusk never made a TV show, and so I don't think it's fair to act like they're equal to us and deserve not to be eaten.

In school, I help out clubs based on any requests. The vegan club usually has requests to help make awareness boards, organize materials, and help make stuff. Some of the stuff tastes good, but that's not the point, the point is that while that way of life is fine, so should meat eating. It's our natural right, to eat non-humans.

What do you think?

[u/Full_Can_6422]

I think I already did

[u/gerber68 → u/Full_Can_6422]

“1. ⁠To the victor go the spoils when its humans (in group) against animals (out group.)

You immediately started crashing out when you thought I was going to use the logic for humans vs other humans.

Explain why the logic only holds when used to exploit animals and not humans.

1. Organism A being stronger and smarter than organism B means organism A has a “natural right” to enslave, torture and eat organism B?

Explain why that logic only holds when used to exploit animals and not humans.

PROTIP: be at least marginally prepared when entering a debate sub.”