Asklemmy

54622 readers

466 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

131

[Ethics] Why do people condemn Zoophilia on the basis of other animal's inability to consent but those same people kill animals without asking for their consent? Why such inconsistency? (lemmy.world)

submitted 2 days ago by when@lemmy.world to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

254 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Be civil and follow principle of charity in the comments.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 0 points 20 hours ago (3 children)

Food is necessary for survival, sex isn't

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 1 points 41 minutes ago

Down voted for correctly answering the question lol

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 5 points 14 hours ago (3 children)

Skipping over the fact that killing animals for food isn't necessary

[–] VictoriaAScharleau@lemmy.world 1 points 1 minute ago

and pretty much no one does that anyway

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 1 points 44 minutes ago

It absolutely is necessary for a lot of people to avoid starving currently, and industrial agriculture necessarily kills a shitload of wild animals too so being vegan in a modern setting still puts a non-zero kill count on your diet

[–] Axxys@lemmy.world 1 points 14 hours ago

I feel like that statement needs some caveats. There's quite a few situations where "killing is necessary for food" is an accurate statement.

[–] zarkanian@sh.itjust.works 2 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

So, you'd be okay if somebody killed you as long as they ate you afterwards?

[–] Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 1 points 42 minutes ago