In regards to eating meat

[3DMonkey]

I'm concerned the transaction would be against the law. The scenario is quite silly to me. You created the hypothetical scenario to try to explain how we must already know compassion towards animals by using a pet as the example. This example has no bearing on eating meat because it only shows that people take issue with an other telling them what to do with their property.

This has nothing to do with my relationship with my pet, and nothing in this conversation reveals my relationship with my pet.

It reveals a great deal, actually. Your words reveal that you view your dog as a mere object, a thing, a possession. Your concern is the same as with any other piece of property. YOUR words, not mine.

I had hoped to elicit some feeling of compassion towards an animal that one already loves, rather than broaching the taboo subject of the obvious love we all (presumably) have for other humans.

I had hoped that an analogy of a beloved dog might trigger a sense of compassion that others could relate too, because I (mistakenly) assumed that we all have love for our dogs, not just as mere property, but as members of our family.

The point was to show that we naturally have more love for an animal, than for a plant. (Just as most of us naturally have more love for our human family members than for our animal family members, though that isn't always true, especially in cases of lonely people whose only family might be their dog or cat.)

Unfortunately, my analogy didn't work. Perhaps the point wasn't lost on everyone, hopefully.

You aren't allowed to do anything with MY dog without my permission. This is why your scenario has nothing to do with EATING meat. That was the purpose of my words.

To take my words and apply them to my character is as ludicrous as me making the claim that YOUR WORDS indicate to me that you truly want to eat my dog. Do you understand your unreasonableness in this?