Can open relationships actually work?

Welcome to the debate arena! Today's topic: "Can open relationships actually work?". Your opponent's style: Morpheus

Racism and sexism is a more important issue than speciesism. Animal cruelty is bad but a humans life is more valuable. People who also willingly eat meat, knowing the meat processing, but are 100% arguing for speciesism are being selective.

You're contradicting yourself and you know it. You're saying human lives matter more, then turning around and saying meat-eaters are "selective" for living by that exact principle. That's not hypocrisy on their part, that's consistency. Here's the real problem with your position: if a being can suffer, can feel pain, can want to live, then the species tag doesn't change the moral math. A pig's agony in a factory farm isn't less real because it's not human. You're just comfortable with that suffering, so you've drawn an arbitrary line and called it logic. Either suffering matters or it doesn't. You can't play both sides.

What I mean by selective is that some meat-eaters don't have an issue consuming animal products, but when a cat or dog is involved, its an issue. Secondly, a child's life is has more value than a pet's life. A child can develop complex thought, can learn to speak, read and write. A mother would not choose their dog over their child, because you can choose another kind over your own. Morality is a human construct as well. It doesn't exist in other species.

You're still dodging the real inconsistency. You just proved my point: people DO value some animals over others based on arbitrary traits like intelligence or cuteness. A pig is smarter than a dog, yet we eat pigs without hesitation. That's selective, not principled. Your "complex thought" argument collapses fast. Infants can't read or write either. Are they less valuable? No, because we intuitively know potential matters. A pig has the same potential to suffer you're protecting in that child. And "morality is a human construct"? So? We constructed it to reduce suffering. Arbitrary origin doesn't make it less real. You're using human construction to justify why human suffering matters, then dismissing animal suffering with the same logic. That's circular.