No, this is a silly response, especially in light of what the following sentence was. It's silly to say a meat eater cannot be an animal lover or have respect for them in the main. Eating fish or chicken does not equate to eating cats or dogs.
You can still have a connection with another lifeform that's not your own that you're not tempted to consume at convenience.
What's your opinion on intelligent life, like dolphins eating fish, but then protects whales from sharks and play with Humans??
Get a grip. Life and existence is complicated.
I respect your right to an opinion but I have to say that I don't find it to be following logic.
"Eating fish or chicken does not equate to eating cats or dogs."
Most people (in this country) would agree with you as clearly people eat the former but not the latter. But what is the basis for this view? The way I see it, they are all sentient creatures who want to live; they all feel pain; they all experience a wide range of emotions; they all want to live. I would genuinely like to know what is the basis for treating some animals badly but others well. Is it based on their level of intelligence? If so, why does intelligence give more rights? Could we apply this to humans and give more rights to those with higher intelligence and mistreat those with learning disabilities?
"You can still have a connection with another lifeform that's not your own that you're not tempted to consume at convenience."
So are the rights of animals dependent on their relationship to human beings? Why? What makes humans the factor in this? If I have a connection with another person or animal, why should that give them more rights than the one I don't have a connection with?
"It's silly to say a meat eater cannot be an animal lover or have respect for them in the main."
Is it respectful to keep an animal pregnant for most of its life then forceably separate its young and place it to live in a crate until it becomes so weak that its legs break beneath it (veal production) or to fill a large plastic bag with male chicks until they suffocate (male chicks are useless in the egg industry so are killed by suffocation or by being thrown live into a grinding machine), or to castrate piglets with a tool that looks like a pair of pliers - with no anaesthetic whatsoever etc. etc. That's just the tip of the iceberg; I could go on all day.
If someone pays for this to happen, I don't see how they can logically describe themselves as an 'animal lover.' Why not just be honest and say that you don't care about animals used for food?
"What's your opinion on intelligent life, like dolphins eating fish, but then protects whales from sharks and play with Humans??"
My take on it is that they are carnivores, driven by instinct. There is a wealth of evidence that humans, historically, are largely herbivorous, possibly scavenging small amounts of meat very occasionally. It's clear that we are healthier eating plants. BUT even if we were carnivores or even if you argue that we are omnivores, that's OK (there is a debate to be had but I guess that's a separate discussion) - but we can't reasonably describe ourselves as 'animal lovers' if we support the animal agriculture industry which systematically causes unimaginable suffering. The point is that all animals need to eat to live. If they have evolved to instinctively eat other creatures, it's horrible but unavoidable. However, doing so when is
is avoidable is obviously the key difference. And we
don't have to treat animals the way we do in animal agriculture; it's a choice based on profit to use intensive farming methods which involve disgusting welfare standards. Or we could just avoid it altogether, which leads to better health, a greatly improved environment and, of course, a
way, way, way better deal for animals.
Surely it's better to just be honest and say, "I don't care about animals except when I emotionally benefit from it."
