4 ms·
They can, in fact, safely return the rabbit to the stew pot. They're food. Rabbits. People eat them. It's not better for the rabbit to be turned loose to be m
by samatman 4y ago
They can, in fact, safely return the rabbit to the stew pot.
They're food. Rabbits. People eat them.
It's not better for the rabbit to be turned loose to be mauled to death by a housecat or eaten by a coyote. A shelter is going to euthanize, wasting good meat.
This is squeamishness masquerading as morality.
- spywaregorilla 4y agoAre dogs food?
- samatman 4y agoAre pigs food to Muslims? Is there a culture where eating rabbit is taboo?
- spywaregorilla 4y agoYou said > They're food. Rabbits. People eat them. Well people eat dogs and pigs so then by the same logic they are food.
- kennend3 4y agoI've had dogs as pets for decades. I don't see why people cant eat them if they want to. I wouldn't eat my dog because of emotional attachments, but that doesn't mean that others who don't have emotional ties cant eat them.
- spywaregorilla 4y agoBut perhaps you can see why someone would be upset if you needed to pass your dog to someone else's care; and they ate them.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- namecheapTA 4y agoI was in Northern Vietnam in 2019, happily riding my rental scooter around. I ride right past a dog on a rotisserie. I stopped to talk to the guy and he showed me his sign that said Dog Meat. After learning the words for dog meat in Vietnamese, I saw the signs everywhere.
- wszfahwbwbaha 4y agoWhat is with all your edgelord stuff with rabbits. You need to work out some of your issues
- gambiting 4y agoThat's not the point. I have literally nothing against eating rabbits - they are delicious in fact. I do hover, object to lying. Like OP said - they(everyone in fact) have the right to make an informed choice. By omitting this information, people who are returning a rabbit aren't making an informed choice. It's a trick, a ruse, if money was involved I'd call it a fraud. Nothing to do with squeamishness.
- conorcleary 4y agoThey're returning the rabbits to the previous owners. There's no further expectation of duty to either party.
- jeromegv 4y agoI think the expectation is that since they bought the rabbit there and the rabbit was happily living there, when they return it, they expect it to still live. They think they are returning the rabbit to its "natural" environment and will happily live on the farm. So there is no legal duty or obligation, but morally, the expectation on both parties are definitely not the same. Otherwise they would tell them that they would cook them when they return them. The fact they are hiding this information shows that expectations are not aligned.
- scrumbledober 4y agoYeah but it's a farm... it's not a rabbit rescue and pet store
- slingnow 4y agoDid you miss the part where the sister says "that [if] they want to let the rabbit loose, they can return it for free"? That's an outright lie, since they aren't letting the rabbit loose to live on the farm -- they're eating it.
- woojoo666 4y agowhat matters is not what we think. What matters is what the girl recovering the rabbits thinks. If she thinks that if she told the truth the rabbits wouldn't be returned to her, then by not saying anything, she is lying by omission.
- meken 4y agoThe part which seems relevant is if the parents (or a random person) had the information that the rabbit would be made into stew, then that would likely change their decision to return the rabbit.