this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2025
447 points (79.6% liked)
Funny: Home of the Haha
7253 readers
245 users here now
Welcome to /c/funny, a place for all your humorous and amusing content.
Looking for mods! Send an application to Stamets!
Our Rules:
-
Keep it civil. We're all people here. Be respectful to one another.
-
No sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia or any other flavor of bigotry. I should not need to explain this one.
-
Try not to repost anything posted within the past month. Beyond that, go for it. Not everyone is on every site all the time.
Other Communities:
-
/c/TenForward@lemmy.world - Star Trek chat, memes and shitposts
-
/c/Memes@lemmy.world - General memes
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What is your rationale? Are you saying that it would be better for those pets if we slaughered them after only a fraction of their natural lifespan (like the animals you have no such sympathy for) so they never encounter their genetic limitations?!
Chickens suffer the same sort of negative consequences of overbreeding, but to a degree orders of magnitude more severe. Why is it worse that a pug cannot breathe than that a chicken's bones cannot even support its own weight?
I suspect that the relevant difference is that you abuse chickens and wish to continue abusing vulnerable individuals who are chickens, but you've made the decision to stop abusing pugs, and so feel free to be critical about their treatment. Not to be unkind to you; that is just basic human nature.
Or the less insane idea of not breeding them in the first place.
Which, pugs or chickens? Surely if one, then moral consistency demands the other as well.
No animal, be it pets or animals raised for slaughter, should live in pain or be exposed to unessesary stress.
That should answer your question.