"not eating animals"
is a moral stance

"not eating some animals purely because you think they are cute"

is hypocritical.

Forgetting law, morality would stay that rape is wrong. Morality doesn't say rape is wrong, unless they are ugly, at which point it's OK. Does it?
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:27, 3 replies, latest was 12 years ago)

No, it's okay to rape uggos because they would never get any otherwise

(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:29, Reply)

well, of course

( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:29, Reply)

where i am confused is: who defines what is a moral?
can you define that for yourself?
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:33, Reply)

I think you're missing the point, sweetie. The problem with the not eating horse example
is not whether eating animals per se is moral or immoral. It's that it's selective, which would be moral hypocrisy.
( the mighty badger Aphrodite, on a bar stool, by your side, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 13:15, Reply)

no, practicality says it's wrong to rape an uggo
because you wouldn't be able to get it up
( rachelswipe with a fork, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:35, Reply)

That's why god invented pencils and sellotape.

(Bazongaloid, Mon 11 Feb 2013, 12:36, Reply)