this post was submitted on 04 Aug 2025
689 points (99.0% liked)
Not The Onion
17530 readers
1636 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's a weird comparison, and it's honestly a sign that you are struggling with separating the two on an emotional level. Which is ironic based on your opening sentence.
Alternatively, you're too good at separating humans and animals on emotional level, to the extreme degree.
Well the animals are being euthenized then fed to the animals to diversify their diets. If assisted suicide was legal here and I elected for it, I would have no qualms with checking a box that said feed my meat sack to the tigers. Although they might not want to do that as it may encourage the idea that the handlers/vets look a lot like food.
I wish this was a "burial" option over making some creepy guy in a suit richer than he already is because you need just the right box for grandpa's meat sac.
The comparable situation would be if your family grew tired of you, and some day decide to euthanize you and feed to tigers.
To which your answer is probably "well, I'm a human, you can't do this to me, I don't want to be killed against my will", and we will be back to square one.
No, you're making this about a humans ability to kill the animal, not what should be done with the dead carcus. The animals fate is already sealed, it's dead whether or not it goes to the zoo. Just means it is either thrown in a furnace or processed some other way.
If you don't like that humans get to choose whar happens to the animals, I understand.. but that's something that should be protested or brought separately to your politicians.
This is more like saying people shouldn't be able to elect to donate organs.
Edit: or rather your family deciding to donate those organs to a someone who needs them after you're dead.
It's a bit less about what happens to the body - that I don't give a shit about - it's about what happens to the live creature. It's not about accepting your dead pets, it's about accepting your alive pets to be killed, and I fundamentally don't like that, no matter will they kill them and fed the corpses to tigers, or burn it like kill shelters do.
I agree with the other response - I don't care about my meat sack once it's no longer operational. Harvest my useful organs for donation, then feed the rest to the kitties.
The difference between humans and other animals is that we understand the concept of death and can make our post-life wishes known.
If my children told me they wanted to be fed to the tigers I'd probably still be horrified by the image of it but I wouldn't push back.
Our pets can't communicate their wishes to us, and in all likelihood they don't care what happens to them when they're dead. Putting their meat to some kind of use seems far more ethical to me than turning it into ash or sticking it in the ground.
It's not about what happens to the body, if it was "bring us your dead pets we will feed them to tigers", I wouldn't be against it. I fundamentally disagree with the idea of surrendering your pet to be killed, be it a kill-shelter, or a zoo.