So no.
Do you eat any plants or animals? Do you have sexual relations with other humans? You probably don't eat humans or sleep with animals so I assume it's clear that extrapolation doesn't always work.
With the advent of modern human rights all humans ended up being officially considered above animals. They are treated according to a different set of rules. Some of these rules may extend to animals to a lesser degree (the humane treatment, not to be confused with human treatment).
If people consider themselves above animals they should say so honestly and not make up an argument that doesn't make sense.
1) If you raise a pig for slaughter then human society considers it's acceptable to kill it. If it wasn't you wouldn't raise it at all would you? If you raise it as a pet then it's likely unacceptable to slaughter it.
2) People do consider themselves above animals and they are very open and vocal about this. This is a shock to you? You could have ended up being someone's pet otherwise.
3) The argument doesn't make sense because you didn't bother processing it. Or possibly even reading it. Or because you think your personal preferences should be laws of society or nature.
Do I need to go on? Your moral issues with slaughtering pigs apply to you. Refuting my argument based on your personal choices is a bit presumptuous. Society as a whole tends to lean the other way.
I do understand what you're saying. I just disagreed providing arguments that are valid for society as a whole while you only provided your personal preference. That's not an argument. I am willing to revisit it when this is no longer the case and society or law no longer consider this acceptable.
I personally consider sacrificing animals that are bred for this purpose as acceptable. I also consider hunting wild animals as acceptable as long as it's sustainable and the individuals can be easily replaced by "equivalent" ones maintaining a natural-like balance. I might have objections to the way animals are raised or killed but this is a different topic. So where exactly is your argument?
If I considered the name "max" insulting to me and immoral would you change yours? Or would you say "society accepts it and it's legal so I'll keep it"?
That's all. I made no judgement on killing animals.
The reasoning that breeding something for slaughter makes it more OK to kill it opens a path to arguing that breeding humans for slavery is different from enslaving "wild" humans. That's actually line a lot of slaveholders used. They argued that their slaves are too dumb to live on their own and have to be kept in slavery in order to survive.
Perfectly correct. So are human rights and all our laws. Does the fact they are arbitrary discredit them? Does it make my argument wrong?
> They are the same ethically in my view
You're getting close. In someone else's view not eating meat is dumb. Does that make his argument correct?
> opens a path to arguing that breeding humans
No it doesn't. It opens the path to exaggerating. Cutting a tree in your yard opens the path to arguing that you should be allowed to cut the Amazon rain forest?
> That's actually line a lot of slaveholders used
And it was wrong. By today's standards. Judging people with the power of hindsight is a grave mistake. Whatever you do today will be incompatible with values of generations to come and you will be judged. Should people start judging you now according to some possible rules of tomorrow? Let things come when they may.
What I said is not intrinsically correct and it will never be. It's correct only in the context of today's society and laws. When they change the value of my argument changes. Society considers breeding pigs for slaughter acceptable today. Hunting whales not so much. Move to Japan and you might get a different answer.
And regardless, it does not change the fact that there is a difference between uncontrolled killing of wild animals and controlled killing of farmed animals. Regardless of how you feel about this, there is a difference. Which was the crux of the argument.