I see what you did there

(the one simple trick is diarrhea)

It’s not about the government not knowing.

The government probably already knows if you have money.

But there are lots of programs available to help defer money. A good financial advisor will know how to take advantage of them.

Talk to a financial advisor.

Do you belong to a credit union? You may have access to one for free.

They’ll be able to tell you how much you can squirrel away for retirement (legally).

You didn’t steal a cat.

A cat decided to move.

Or an engineer.

I’m not trying to justify anything to you, or to anyone else.

Ethics don’t exist in the world outside of humans. That’s simply a fact.

And many different human ethical systems exist. If you believe that eating animals is always unethical, that is your ethic. If that means you believe I am unethical, then that viewpoint is valid within your system of ethics.

It’s not possible to sway somebody by contradicting their own ethics; the only way to change a person’s ethics is to appeal to them by showing the commonalities between belief systems, then showing them the benefits of certain variations that you believe.

Neither you nor I like animal suffering. The difference is, I’ve seen plenty of animals lead relaxed, happy lives, that end painlessly before the animal is turned into meat. I understand that the notion repulses you.

I’ve also seen plenty of “free” animals who’ve led short, painful unhappy lives. I’m sure you and I can both agree that this is not good. And if the animal led a short, painful, unhappy life in captivity directly because it was destined to be food? That’s an inherently bad thing.

I’m not criticizing your viewpoint, and I’m not trying to justify my viewpoint to you. But my viewpoint exists, and many people hold it.

That statement is untrue, because many different sets of ethics disagree with you.

“I’m not vegan because I love animals. I’m vegan because I hate plants.”

-SMBC, I think

An omnivore is predisposed to eat anything. Absent synthetic food processing? Yes, an omnivore must eat both meat and plants.

Humans are the only species (that we know of) who chooses whether or not to eat something based on a system of ethics. But at the same time, most of the world doesn’t have the privilege to decide whether or not to eat only specific things. In parts of the world, if you don’t eat meat, you don’t eat. In other parts of the world, if you don’t eat plants, you don’t eat. It’s simply nature.

I don’t criticize your reasons for not eating meat. And I don’t criticize your perspectives and responses to me, because I understand your viewpoint. But if you think your arguments are novel to me, you’re wrong. And if you think I eat meat only for flavor, you’re also wrong.

All that said, Americans do eat way too much meat. We need to reduce the amount of animal protein we take in - not because of ethics, but because it’s unhealthy to overindulge. Similarly, we need to reduce the amount of sugar we take in.

Reality is complicated. I don’t deal in absolutes.

My cats eat a diet almost entirely of delicious, delicious meat.

None of it is made of cats.

Nor do I eat cat meat.

There’s nothing wrong with being omnivorous as long as you’re ethical about it.

There’s also nothing wrong with veganism as long as you’re ethical about it.

I draw the line at cannibalism, though. Way too easy to spread human pathogens that way.

You are correct. His statement wasn’t about technology, it was about expectations.

Momo

deleted by creator

Short answer, probably not. Anatomy is complex, and the source of the pressure may or may not be at the single point where you most feel it. Even if it is a single point, you wouldn’t be dealing with what caused the pressure, and the body would seal the wound as quickly as it can.

As if you’re perceptive enough to know whether or not you’re a failure at being a functional human being.

Maybe if you tried harder.

Edit: apparently it wasn’t clear enough that I’m not serious

…I’m not sure how else you’re trying to be seen, based on how you keep responding to me.

I’m not talking about how it was seen. I’m talking about how it is. There’s a difference.

Cutting off hands was seen as socially acceptable at certain times in history, if someone was merely accused of theft. But it is horrific and terrible. How it was seen as irrelevant to it being terrible objectively terrible.

Are you just trolling, or are you actually trying to defend some of that behavior?

No, but it was harmful.

I’m talking about the objective harm of encouraging underage girls to avoid study and live their lives in the service of older men. There is nothing good that can be said about such a thing. It’s basically indentured servitude.

I said it was objectively terrible, I didn’t mention morals. :)

Harming people is terrible, whether or not social morality supports it.