It's not new to me that people get defensive when faced with something that doesn't cooperate with their bubble and perfectly brainwashed meaning of equality, justified on milion ways just to make themselves feel good. Why not adopt kids and train them to be helpers for those blind ppl whole their life, feed them,give them home and food under the condition that they will spend their whole lives as trained to serve/guide tools for other humans "in need" etc? oh, coz thats not ethical, you cant do that to humans, they deserve to have normal lives, what about dogs? they just dogs they wont mind,they should be grateful to be used by humans as guides/helpers, lets breed dogs and make them servants and call it " relationship where both sides have benefits" so everyone will see it as good thing. that sound like non vegans faced with reasons why someone went vegan, totally defensive and in denial and, like we see here, hateful, but its ok, i already got used to it. Peace.
To the crux of your argument: A “normal” life for a dog. To you this means what, exactly? To live in the wild, to hunt other animals (and if they can) humans too, like wolves in packs. A “normal” life for a dog, say, who is injured, or has a disability is to be left out of the pack for other animals to kill and eat. To leave it to die is “normal” and fits with those high ethics of yours, right? Because that is necessarily included in your vision of a dog’s “normal” life.
As a human with some screwed up idea of both normalcy and “equality”, exactly what would you do if you found yourself face to face with a hungry and aggressive dog? Would you attempt to defend yourself? Would you kill the dog?
Would you defend another human, say, a weak or frail human, like a newborn, from a hungry animal? After all, that too is a scenario under your idea of what is normal. But it isn’t exactly equal, is it?
Or would you give it some food out of your pack and at least try to placate it? Now if this, the dog might see you as less of a meal, less of an enemy and less of a threat. If you fed it regularly, it might even see you as family or at least friend.
Some animals, like certain types of dogs, are more conducive to being our friends. Others, like mountain lions and tigers, will always see you as a potential meal, and they will always go after an easy target (like another human, a frail human, a newborn, the sick, etc).
If you are either in danger or you have the ability to defend another human who is in danger, then you have a choice to make, but that choice can neither be both “normal” and “equal”. You choose the human over the hungry animal, or you let the animal have it’s way.
The only thing you can do with certain animals is be kind to them and let them be. Some will be your friends, others will not. If they are not going to be your friend, then they can be a danger to you and others, and when faced with that danger, you cannot practice your “equality”. You must choose between humans and the aggressive animal or animals.
Animals are not our equals. This does not give us the right to abuse them, torture them, and eat them, especially when it is unnecessary for us, and harmful to us, and harmful to the environment we have set up in regularly breeding them for consumption. What you are doing here is injecting an argument of equality where it does not belong, one you will not be able to defend given real examples like the ones above.
As for Vegans who went vegan out of compassion for the animals, I have no problem with that, and I agree with them. What I do have a problem with is attitudes like yours, expressed as some sort of super ethics looking down on others when you cannot practice it in real life examples. It’s therefore rubbish and it’s just stupid and arrogant. 0 Vegans can practice the kind of “equality” you refer to when faced with a threat from an animal that won’t be friended. They either choose their own life and safety or they let the animal have it’s way. Not equal either way.
