There are just some things I am not willing to make comparisons of
I agree with you. It’s not that animals aren’t suffering and that it shouldn’t stop, but it’s not anywhere near the same thing as humans butchering humans for entirely meaningless and hateful reasons. That’s the sticking point for me: reason. Yes, the treatment of some animals - not all, by the way - raised for food is appalling, but at least there’s a reason behind it - food - rather than no reason that anyone with a compassionate mind can even begin to understand. Comparing it to hate crimes is like… I don’t even know, I can’t think up a crazy enough example.
Everything has a reason behind it. Mein Kampf is full of Hitler’s political idealogies and rationalizations. Just because an action has a flawed reason behind it, does not validate it, or make it somehow more acceptable.
Slaughter is slaughter, genocide is genocide, innocence is innocence, and compassion is compassion. And it seems as though these have been warped and distorted to suit personal opinions.
By your logic, faeriee: The Holocaust would have been acceptable if the Germans had eaten the Jews, or what?
Maybe you should question why you don’t like those comparisons instead on trying to call out those who do. You don’t seem to know, other than it being a knee-jerk reaction to the mention of something you have been told was unparalleled in it’s cruelty.
You’ll soon find that there is no logical way to object to these comparisons and remain non-speciesist.
(This post still provides no counter to the arguments brought to you; just another reiteration of your initial post. All you have done is add that you think that it is OK to kill non-human animals for food…)