My point had nothing to do with harm but with logic. The idea that some animals are more worthy than others when it comes to consumption makes no sense. If your argument is about harm reduction then the only issue with killing Whales would be killing so many it has food chain ramifications. Other then that there is no harm. If your argument is about its wrong to eat sentient beings you can't kill any animal.

The only argument you can have against killing a chicken instead of a whale is we've always killed chickens which isn't an argument. As for saving a baby instead of chicken were biologically programed to care for a baby to keep the humanity going and eating one is harmful to our health

[–] michaelrose@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

You actually feel like killing chickens and killing people have equal moral weight? Ya you aren't worth talking with any longer.

[–] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If you actually read my comment you'd see I said we are biologically programmed not to kill or eat human babies. Which is why logically we have no reason to resort to cannibalism.

I argued theres no moral argument to claim its better to eat chickens instead of whales. If you weren't so focused on just arguing you'd see that

[–] michaelrose@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Whales appear to have a higher degree of understanding of the universe I and others feel it is more akin to eating humans than chickens. If you don't agree with that premise you probably wont agree with anything else.

[–] Cosmonauticus@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yeah the only thing stopping Whales from space travel and enlightenment is a lack of thumbs and the ability to sit

[–] gayhitler420@lemm.ee -1 points 1 year ago

Lol, cry about it, bloodmouth.