Sure, but the logic reveals literally nothing. I can create an entire Sims world for the sole reason to see if the “turn pink clothing in to green clothing” mod works. Does the fact that their existence had a reason actually mean a damn thing?

And once again, this is an argument against factory farming and inhumane practices, not farming and domestication in general.

Yes, I agree that factory farming is horrific. Yes, I agree that people should eat less meat. Yes, I agree people need to be more aware of where their products come from.

However, just because you neighbor beats his dog doesn’t mean everyone does.

And I repeat the same question I ask every time. Are you universally against ALL forms of animal domestication and husbandry? Eg. A small hobby farm that keeps a few chickens for eggs, and a few goats for milk.

That’s an argument for vegetarianism, not veganism. What about wool, honey, milk, eggs. And different countries have different mechanisms. Using the USA as a basis, is admittedly a bad example.

Here in Germany, there are very strict regulations on how living conditions can be claimed, ranging from 1(literal torture) to 5(outdoor access, pasture raised etc.) I’m not saying it’s a perfect system, but I can’t agree that it’s impossible and pointless to try when there are places actively trying and actively supporting l.

Actually, counter-intuitively, strict veganism would objectively increase animal suffering if authentic alternatives exist. Which they do. But they are admittedly not easy to find. Ethical farms do exist, and typically self-regulate and self-support by selling the products the animals produce. Wool clothes, free-range eggs, end-of-life meat, excess milk & honey, etc. If your only 2 options are torture products, or nothing, then yes I 100% agree that veganism would be the correct choice. Between these 3 options though, giving your money to an ethical farmer objectively increases the livelihood of the animals under its care, more so than complete avoidance.

You realize putting googly eyes on a toaster doesn’t give it feelings, right?

Assigning human values and desires to non-humans is not a coherent philosophy or ethical position.

Animals “Exploit” each other throughout the animal kingdom. Ants Literally farm aphids by protecting and herding them in exchange for what they produce. How is this wildly different from keeping a cow or a goat for milk?

Is the cow version evil because we’re humans, but the ant version okay because they aren’t?

Because that’s just making rules based on your desired outcome, not reason.

So your entire complaint is based on vibes and feelings. Got it 👍

They’re both computers that can be used in helpful and harmful ways. Can you deliminate how exactly they are different, beyond scope?

Yes, but that means they’re using the tool incorrect. I can attempt to jam a wrench on the end of a soldering iron and use it to make a circuit board, that doesn’t mean I’m using the tool wrong, and should be justifiably mocked for doing so.

LLMs have their place. The fact they are being wildly abused and misused does not diminish that.

Better be afraid of them new-fangled digital calculators too! Real calculations should be done by people. Having them performed by computers will make us dumber.

It’s a tool. It can be used right and wrong. Being afraid of the tool because it is being used wrong doesn’t make it go away, and doesn’t make it less useful.

Several reasons. First, humans have already decided that intentionally causing harm is not something we condone as a society, even under the guise of cultural or religious exemption. Largely, because it assumes that every single person part of the religion is there voluntarily, which is demonstrably false.

Secondly, it DOES affect me. There is an active effort to erode the separation of church and state, meaning Christian values are being actively imposed on those who do not claim any affiliation with Christianity. Southern Baptist, being the largest denomination in the south, is increasingly active in politics.

And lastly, I 100% agree that people within a religion should make absolutely no attempt to control the lives of those NOT within their religion. But that is not what we see.

My religion says that I am morally obligated to beat you up and steal your car, so how dare you argue that I shouldn’t.

You’re a religious bigot if you try to tell me that following the tenets of my faith are wrong.

Just because a book says a thing doesn’t make it right or justified, and crying about being a victim while actively supporting oppression doesn’t make you a champion of good.

You might want to read up on the “No true Scotsman” fallacy too.

That’s because I’m an idiot! One sec.