• Natha@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can replace cars with anything else and it still makes no sense. It’s no one else but the thieves who should take the consequences.

    • whenigrowup356@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      We ban things we want less of. More eating dogs means a bigger market for all dog meat, which means a bigger market for theft. I want less of that.

      People don’t steal things that no one wants to buy.

      I’m talking about the side effects of fostering a culture where eating a non-livestock animal is ok. My argument is that this kind of culture is pointlessly cruel to an animal that we’ve explicitly bred to be a companion.

      One element of discouraging a culture is government action, a ban (coercion). I argue this is a necessary step in ending a cruel practice.

      The other is cultural compliance (people behaving in a certain way regardless of the presence of law enforcement officials). I argue this is a necessary step as well, by way of education and improving access to alternatives.