- Why don't schools teach us to form our... latest post by Inkingi | 35 responses
- What is the most meaningful sentence y... latest post by MicrowaveMetal | 125 responses
- Do you still believe in the things you... latest post by scathey1 | 12 responses
- Is organized religion the root of all ... latest post by ukdirector | 217 responses
- Will human beings really ever understa... latest post by ukdirector | 59 responses
Great question, but we often forget that we are animals as well. Why shouldn’t other animals have the right to live a reasonably satisfying life before they succumb and contribute to the cycle of life? Life feeds on life; this is the cycle of life on this planet. Plants die to feed other species and animals do the same. We are at the pinnacle of the food chain and ideally we should have the wisdom to grant the right for other species to live and raise their young as we all should have a right to do. If we are to develop into enlightened sentient beings, we will have to consider the needs of other species on this planet and not infringe on their right to live. This does not necessarily mean we should not eat other animals, we have incisors and that means we are carnivores or actually omnivores, we eat both plants and animals. Actually why shouldn’t we respect plant life as well, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t eat plants but that we should eat ripe plants that have lived their life cycle. So I would say it isn’t hypocrisy it is being a sentient omnivore.
by Thai sean
But its a prominent ironical situation
It's about the universal law and nature of food chain. But I think it's a great irony and a prominent one if someone's showcasing him/herself as a supporter of animal rights and at the same time, being a carnivore. Afterall, we're killing animals. But when an animal kills a human, we call that animal monstorous and dangerous. Does it mean, it's fine if a tiger kills a man, just because he took that man as a part of his food chain?