2007-02-04 12:20:33 · 19 answers · asked by Conna Sta 1 in Pets ➔ Other - Pets
they are not comparable
2007-02-04 12:22:32 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
These aren't really comparable but for the sake of arguement; On the moral, ethic, and political levels the holocaust is hands down the worst of the two options however if you were a liberal vegetarian who wears Birkenstocks and clothes made of hemp then a slaughterhouse would be perceived as the works of satan himself while the holocaust would merely be a sad story.
2007-02-04 20:31:37 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Holocaust!
2007-02-04 20:23:35 · answer #3 · answered by myparentskid 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
At least slaughter houses serve a purpose, mainly to provide food for the population. Whether or not this food is necessary is irrelevant when comparing the slaughter of animals to genocide. Genocide is very much worse and violates all kinds of legal and moral laws.
Slaughter houses are legal.
2007-02-04 20:31:49 · answer #4 · answered by thetunak 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you think the killing of a human being is
comparable to the killing of another animal?
If you don't, then there really is no comparison.
Humans naturally eat meat. Yes, we can
survive without it, given various vitamin and
protein substitutions, but, normally, we eat
meat.
That means, we're going to end up killing animals.
There has been lots of work done to make this
process more "humane", mostly because making
it more humane makes it more efficient (the
meat companies really don't care how the
animal feels - but a frightened bull is hard to
move down the line).
Personally, I am a card carrying carnivore.
I try to avoid being pointlessly cruel - but I also
sleep well at nights after eating a steak.
I would have a tough time working at a
slaughter house initially, but I know I'd get
over it - especially if I was particularly hungry.
2007-02-04 20:27:20 · answer #5 · answered by Elana 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
The holocaust is
And take your PETA loving a** somewhere else.
2007-02-04 21:32:00 · answer #6 · answered by silvaspurranch 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
holocaust
2007-02-05 01:50:34 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
holocaust
2007-02-04 20:27:37 · answer #8 · answered by undercovernudist 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
They are both equally important and are both very wrong. Just because we eat meat doesnt mean its fare to kill an animal with so many emotions as the horse. So killing horses is wrong and so is murdering people.
2007-02-04 21:14:03 · answer #9 · answered by Shawna 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋
You can't compare the deaths of animals to the murder of human beings.
2007-02-04 20:31:21 · answer #10 · answered by notyou311 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Both
2007-02-04 20:35:12 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋