Quote:Given a child rapist and a placid cow, I'd prefer to apply the bolt gun to the first, and the state-sponsored sustained existence to the other. It seems to me irrational that people who are not productive members of society, or who have brought harm to society, have any protection at all, while animals which have done no harm are kept in inhumane conditions with little liberty or hope of pleasure, then slaughtered to feed a population that is already grossly overfed.
The difference is you can't eat the child rapist since cannibalism is illegal, you can eat the cow so there goes a big difference. If you support capital punishment or not, that's up to your ideas, but the reason both get killed are difference, cows are killed for feeding and utility, humans are killed as a last resource because they are dangerous to society. You make a big mistake in your argue, you are justifying animals protection by comparing them to humans, it's ok to justify both pulling the trigger on the rapist and not pulling it on the cow, but do it trough sustainable arguments and not trough comparing humans (as rational animals) with other species, since there is a huge difference between us and them, starting with our intelligence and reason, skills and the fact humans are the only animal that cannot survive in the wild if left alone (you'll notice all newborns from animals possess basic survival skills)
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you
