I'm sorry, but that's not what I'm saying. In particular, I'm not saying that pigs aren't very moral because they'd eat us, because I don't think it's immoral to eat another animal.
I also certainly do not justify in cruelty to pigs, or any other animals, in any way, shape or form. Animals should be killed in a way that causes the least suffering possible.
>> I can imagine a slave owner in the 1800s using the same type of rationalization. "If black people were smarter and more advanced than us, they'd have made us slaves", he'd say. "They would do it to us, so we do it to them."
You are comparing me to a slave owner?
The difference of course here is that black people are just as smart as whites.
Sorry for misunderstanding. I'm still not sure I'm following though.
> You are comparing me to a slave owner?
I'm certainly not saying you support slavery. But I am comparing the line of reasoning to reasoning that has been used to justify other unsavory things.
> The difference of course here is that black people are just as smart as whites.
Presumably the slave owner wouldn't think so.
But even if the enslaved people were less intelligent, how would that justify slavery?
I also certainly do not justify in cruelty to pigs, or any other animals, in any way, shape or form. Animals should be killed in a way that causes the least suffering possible.
>> I can imagine a slave owner in the 1800s using the same type of rationalization. "If black people were smarter and more advanced than us, they'd have made us slaves", he'd say. "They would do it to us, so we do it to them."
You are comparing me to a slave owner?
The difference of course here is that black people are just as smart as whites.