Similar Posts

Subscribe
Notify of
29 Answers
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mauli73
2 months ago

Sure. This is the most natural in the world. When a man is starving, Dan he no longer acts ethically, but the body throws on the self-deservation drive and he says that cat or dog mampling.

Even though many claim the opposite, because they think they are wise, morally superior, etc., we are all just people and the strongest of all shoots, the self-conservation drive can only switch off the least.

xSHUKAKUx
2 months ago

No.

I even think my cat wouldn’t eat me either.

In the case of cats, it has sometimes been the case that they have chased her wife or herd out of need until they have been found.

I don’t think that’s the case with my cat.

And even if… if my cat could live on, it would be fine for me.

lemmster2412516
2 months ago

Moin Incognito as ingenious. I’ve heard or read from people who have eaten everything that was available. wallpaper, hamster, shoes- it must be really terrible to starve. I used to feed myself without pain for two weeks only liquidly. Zack- were a pair of kilos less on the scale.

ruza2808
2 months ago

Of course not, something like that would come to my mind! Rather I would give a part of me, my animal, so that there is not starved!!! 👍😎

SkyWalkerObi98
2 months ago

It was made shortly after WWII. If you’re really hungry… safe.

Billaboy1968
1 month ago

Yes, certainly – the will for survival would make sure.

rr1957
2 months ago

probably I would rather eat food from the pet – and the pet would have to feed himself or would starve

huland
2 months ago

If there is such a miserable lack of food, the pet is long starved before you or so migrated that there is nothing left.

Wilhelm611
2 months ago

Farm animals serving for nutrition are also pets in the broadest sense!

It used to be normal!

Today in the prosperity society a lot is seen differently!

SHildegard
2 months ago

No, because there is always something to eat in the free nature. Roots of certain plants, for example, you just have to know.

Mirrow333
2 months ago

I don’t have a pet, but I would still eat NIMALS my pet!! I’d rather starve. That’s like, would you eat your brother/sister if you were starving right before?

MarkNRW
2 months ago

clearly, when it comes to pure existence, moral limits shift

FynnZero
2 months ago

Even if I had eaten my pet would give me the vll only one-two days more to live then I can also die with him

Tarani157
2 months ago

Since I don’t have a pet, I’d probably have to eat my children, but I’d probably sacrifice myself so that my children can eat me and survive.

lemmster2412516
2 months ago
Reply to  Tarani157

Mother of the Year!!!

Tarani157
2 months ago

I think that would make every mother.

paradies098
2 months ago

Even then not. Apart from that, I’m Pescetarier.

lemmster2412516
2 months ago
Reply to  paradies098

These are the worst! hayskins before not eating animals, ABBA fish are not animals!

paradies098
2 months ago

Biblical researcher. Was long vegetarians until I got to know that Jesus was eating fish.

lemmster2412516
2 months ago

So?

paradies098
2 months ago

So I eat fish now. But not all.

lemmster2412516
2 months ago

So?

Klappstuhl001
2 months ago

Yeah, that would happen.

CRIIIPTIC
2 months ago

I’d rather let my animal live on

Dvd2000
2 months ago

Before that I would eat the prey hunt my pet or suffer the hunger death with my pet

TheAmigos
2 months ago

No. There is always another possibility

Repwf
2 months ago

Rather, I would chop my hand off so my baby survives!

michi57319
2 months ago

No, not the other way around. We have a dog.

guitschee
2 months ago

Yeah.