They probably aren’t. But they are qualified to comment on a theoretical post about the subject.

OP is asking what each person would contribute, not that each person must contribute something that they are qualified to. Which, for the most of us, is nothing. So get off your “intellectual” high horse and contribute to the conversation or change your non-contributions to silence instead of pedantic bullcrap.

Isn’t that poisonous in large quantities?

Even in your examples you are treating animals as less than human. Why? Again, where is the line that involuntary trespassing is punishable by immediate death? If a person bit you, yeah you could fight them off and use force. But, to be compare fairly, you would have to kill the person that bit you. Even then this is still an unfair argument because

1. That is not typical human behavior
2. A human bite can do substantially more damage than a mosquito bite.

So tell me where you can treat animals ethically identically as humans, and where you can’t. Where is the line?

I wouldnt completely agree. I think using something other than your conscience is somewhat disingenuous. For the most part, any inconsistencies have been from personal growth/change. I live my life so that i can sleep at night.

As far as stopping meat consumption. Yes that is something that i can do. I believe the moral implications of doing that are minimal, simply because animals and humans have different ethical considerations. But this is getting off topic.

I claimed there wasn’t much i could do to improve the morality of meat consumption (ie Ethical living conditions, reduced scale etc.) . It’s like i wanted to make cars more fuel efficient and you told me to ride a bike. It sidesteps the claim and proves a point i wasn’t arguing.

I as a single person, with limited time and limited funds can’t change how large companies mass butcher livestock, not without sacrificing other things i value more.

There is an assumption here that i don’t think of right and wrong. Which isn’t true, as evidenced by this entire comment chain. My morality is based off of my conscience, and it has a final say in how i act. But I still think and explore ethically difficult situations to determine what is right, wrong, or grayish.

I just didnt describe my entire ethical schema, because, as i said i am lazy. Lazy and self-aware enough to know that there is not much i can or will do to improve the morality of meat consumption. And honestly, that specific problem is pretty low on my list of ethical dilemmas. But it’s fun to talk about.

Thank you for the definition. I think it is wrong. But i appreciate it nonetheless.

My reasoning is that, while it may have started as a theistic word, it isn’t anymore. When someone says it i don’t think “a creation of God” i just think of like, an animal. Definitions change over time.

Yeah, i completely agree that i am painting with broad strokes. I knew a guy that ate vegan because he believed it was healthier, not for any moral considerations at all.

I am mostly trying to strike up some conversation about the ethics of eating meat. I think your answer is as correct as any could be. It really is up to the individual to make their own determinations.

I value every other species as worth less than a human and therefore they have different ethical considerations.

But, far down are you willing to go? How small? Rabbits? Rats, mice? Insects? Is squishing a spider ethically identical as murdering some one? I would say no, what would you say? There is a line, be it soft or hard, somewhere.

I mean, yeah. Im also being pedantic with unqualified absolutes.

The fact remains sometimes it absolutely is ethical to kill stuff, even if they don’t want to die.

My general ethical foundation is based on my conscience saying “that would be bad” or “seems ok”. I fully admit that this is potentially a personal flaw, but I don’t feel bad about eating meat. I have a vague sense of guilt for the treatment of meaty animals, but honestly, it isn’t enough to offset the convenience of a burger.

Tldr sometimes its ethically okay to kill stuff, and I’m too lazy to do anything about benefitting from the majority of times when it isn’t ethical.

I understand that completely, death isn’t where the suffering usually occurs. This brings me to another question that i proposed in response to a different comment.

I had family that raised a cow to eventually become meat. It was named Tasty and lived up to its namesake. Tasty was treated well and killed quickly and cleanly. Is that, like, bad?

I mean, sometimes its ethical. Its kind of unnecessary (and therefore immoral) at the scale of modern meat farms. But on a more individual level with like subsistence hunting/livestock, i dont feel like there are any ethical problems. Like if you need food or you will die, animals lives are worth less than humans lives…

There’s is a popular school of thought that the diet‘s sole purpose to reduce suffering. If a living thing has no central nervous system (or brain), it has no thoughts and cannot experience pain or harm.

What about instant death? Like a farmer putting down a well-treated cow with a bullet to the head. In this scenario, the cow never suffered. In all likelihood it probably never even had much mental distress, let alone fear of death. Would that meat be ethical/vegan friendly?

So is this theory of veganism to not cause pain to an animal? If so what about ethically sourced meat. Like bullet to the head/decapitation. Most of those creatures feel nothing, they just end.

Or is it to not eat anything that comes from the an organism from the Animalia kingdom because harming animals is immoral?

After proofreading, these sound more aggressive/argumentative than i had intended but they get the point across.

The only true way is to live exclusively off of mushrooms or mushroom fed livestock. That way NO plants will be harmed. (The fungus deserves it, so no moral compunctions)

How would you define creature?

How does one access images 3 and up in Memmy? I haven’t been able to.

Ok. What is energy in this context? Is it the literal electricity that keeps instances alive? Is it the motivation for people to post and discuss?

I know the technical definition, and i don’t see how it is a positive thing in the context that was used. Does op mean dispersion of ideas? Similar to how entropy is dispersed energy?

Chaos because there are so many separate ideas coming together?

What does entropy mean in the given context?

I think technically it would be referred to “Deep Web” which is the same level as financial records and medical records, stuff that is unlisted and requires a l login to access. It’s where (according to some iceberg graphics i found) 90% of the Internet’s days is found.