People arguing that would be happy if no animals were farmed at all.
The opposite argument is equally dumb, you wouldn't legalize crack because beer is a drug and beer is legal
The opposite argument is equally dumb, you wouldn't legalize crack because beer is a drug and beer is legal
This. It's a propaganda angle to try to get non-activists to support their group's demands by adding a spin to their claims that makes it more engaging.
The same blend of propaganda also includes things like showing a picture of a pig showing only its eyes, devised to underline their similarities with human eyes. They then proceed to draw a parallel between slaughtering pigs and humans. Another take is portraying cattle as pets, and you wouldn't kill your own pets now would you?
In the end it's just propaganda to try to convince non-militants to unwittingly support a cause. It doesn't matter if it's arbitrary or outlandish. The goal is to sway you to do the militant's bidding.
And is it really outlandish to want to stop hurting animals that really are similar to cats, dogs and yes, us humans, at least as far as the ability to perceive pain and basic emotions. Perhaps the propaganda is actually that it is okay for non-human animals to endure horrific suffering, just so that some humans can spend a few minutes "enjoying" the taste of their flesh or breast-milk.. (the production of which also requiring huge amounts of plant-based feed, which significantly contributes to deforestation & methane emissions)
You are literally discussing militant groups engaged in pushing their political agenda through propaganda. There are no two ways about it.
Off-topic, but why not? I would actually legalize every substance; enforce safety measures (e.g. no driving while high) and services like NA.
Let people do what they want.