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.

What is revealed to me is that you see your pet as your property.

This is the very egocentric human behavior that has nearly wrecked this planet: that all things (and life other than human) are for our (human) use, our "property," our chattel (as men once thought of women, and still do in some cultures).

The purpose of the hypothetical scenario is lost in your translation.