3 ms·
You didn't ask that question. You asked whether consumers (not the meat industry) should be be held liable. But certainly, if the meat industry meets the bar o
by the8472 7y ago
You didn't ask that question. You asked whether consumers (not the meat industry) should be be held liable.
But certainly, if the meat industry meets the bar of criminal animal cruelty then I don't see why they shouldn't be held liable.
My initial comment was whether existing animal cruelty statutes should be extended to cover pet owners instead of only direct actions by people, assuming they don't already do so.
- Razengan 7y agoYou seem to be aware of cats committing animal cruelty but you're not sure if the meat industry meets the bar of animal cruelty? What?
- the8472 7y agoNo, you asked whether it should be held liable. I answered that it should be held liable, conditional on the legal process determining so. We can't just decide that they should be held liable by mob vote, that's not how justice works. Hence my answer: If A then B. I made no statement wrt. my personal opinion whether A is true or not. But even rolling with the argument for a moment that the meat industry meets the bar and manages to evade the law anyway. That is no justification for letting pets do the same. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that, so for the purpose of this conversation that would seem like an unnecessary deflection of responsibility by pet owners and the better answer is to improve both.