The question necessarily implies hypocrisy on the part of carnists i.e. "if this woman murdering her dog makes you feel bad, you should feel bad when you murder animals" or even "you murder animals all the time, what right do you have to judge her for doing the same thing?"

I certainly read it as you trying to equivocate the two! And I doubt I was the only one.

[–] MattsAlt@hexbear.net 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

If you eat meat and this kind of story upsets you, please do some careful examination of why the industrial animal torture industries do not.

The Internet is text based, assigning a tone to what is typed is purely a personal problem to put it bluntly.

They are asking why industrial animal torture is not upsetting but killing a pet dog is. Why is someone who feels upset about the suffering of a dog not also upset about the suffering of a pig, cow, or chicken? If it's purely the label of pet, we get back to the comment you replied to

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 11 points 6 months ago

Vocabulary creates tone and "the industrial animal torture industries" is far from a neutral phrase. If you can't read tone it's a skill issue.

They are asking why industrial animal torture is not upsetting compared to killing a pet dog because they are equivocating the two.

"Pet" is not purely a label, it is the social relationship between pets and their families. That is what is so upsetting to people. Equivocating would make more sense if she had a dog-meat farm, because those aren't pets. Horrible, but only as horrible as any other blood farm that raises animals for slaughter. Killing pets, though, is clearly different. That's killing family. People are going to get upset about it.