The problem with lookism is that it takes someone’s appearance as face value and judges based on it which is just prejudice. There’s more to a person than its appearance. Why would someone be mocked for its hair-loss, baldness or facial features?
From animals’ perspective, Non-consensual killing is worst than Non-consensual sex (Rape). Their similarities lies in the negation of consent by the humans and both actions are unjust. Humans are just giving out disingenuous arguments to hide their crime of killing innocent animals because they benefit from such injustices.
Again the point was similarities in non-consensual killing and raping. Don’t you think that killing and raping are both great injustices against innocent animals? If we think killing is ok then Raping also becomes ok as it’s a smaller crime than killing.
How are you not able to see the similar patterns within these systemic injustices against innocents?
If Killing is considered right then Raping should be right because both persons are getting away with doing wrong to “innocent victims”. Here, Killer should not be judgmental of Rapist’s actions because Killing is a far bigger crime.
You are saying that humans killing animal for their benefits is right. Then you should also appreciate humans having sex with other animals. Because in both cases we are neglecting the Animal’s consent in its entirely. As we are far more intelligent and strong, we should do whatever we please (Killing or Raping) with other animals. It’s logically consistent.
From Animal’s perspective, They are either getting Murdered or Raped without consenting for either. It would not be fair for the victim if we give verdict based on criminal’s perspective.
Why such opposite reaction? X commited murder for its benefit and Y commited rape for its benefit. Both have dismissed the “consent of animals” for their respective benefits. You can either condone both or condemn both.
Exactly.
Through Animal’s perspective - Raping an animal is bad but Killing is worst outcome as it removes them from the gene pool, which means they can’t be able to produce their offspring and continue their progeny/generation. ~ Humans justify killing animals because they think through their own benefits, because they neglect animal’s perspective.
You can’t compare living animals with inanimate objects. “Animals can’t consent” is a strong argument given against zoophilia. I want you look at the social inconsistent values; where killing animal without their consent is accepted but copulating with animal is condemned by giving the argument that “Animals can’t consent”. Here the consent is inconsistent and getting used for convenience. [Necrophilia is also condemned on the basis of corpses’ inability to consent.]
I am sorry for making you feel this way.
I have no mischievous intent against any group. I just saw some moral inconsistency. So I though let’s AskLemmy about their opinion on this topic. People are answering pretty rationally and are not just outright dismissive.
Who do you personally consider a bigger criminal?
(We are making judgments solely based on the animal’s perspective. So we can’t include disingenuous human arguments like “They died a noble death for our survival”.)
In both cases we should be considering animal’s perspective (what animals feel in both cases). We can’t just involve human’s perspective for our own convenience. Do animals consent to be murdered? I don’t think so.
Yes, beauty standard is historically pretty high in the case of women. The whole women beauty industry make profit off of manufacturing insecurities about their appearance. Worse happen when Aesthetics becomes priority over Health. News related to ozempic (weight loss drug) death has become a common occurrence in the recent years.