But how?

Sounds great what you’re proposing - sounds also like magical thinking.

What’s a realistic way to achieve all the changes you’re suggesting? That’s the question we actually have to answer. Right now you’re just daydreaming which systemic changes would change the system for the best outcome.

And to add: Corporations won’t adjust without being forced politically or economically, and both of those options depend entirely on individual action - either at the voting booth or with our purchases.

None of this is realistic though. What you’re asking for is akin to an absolute miracle. Where would the political forces come from that do that? How could a majority be motivated to vote them into office? How could we get a whole capitalist machinery on board not to counteract and sabotage this?

They’re good ideas, but realistically speaking we have to start somewhere else.

Evidence points that they are rational. Therefore humans are not different than animals in any way, so if animals in their right to live have a right to kill in order to live, then humans also share in that right.

That doesn’t follow at all.

Rationality isn’t a binary, so animals being rational could still mean humans are different simply by order of magnitude.

Humans are different from other animals in the same way animals are vastly different to each other. Obviously we are animals, but comparing our morality to other animals makes as much sense as comparing our science to theirs. Is science not valid and worthwhile because other animals build no universities of their own?

You are willfully ignoring the mental capacity that gives us the ability to critically think about morality and implications in the first place. As long as you can think about the necessity to kill, other people can and will judge you for the decision to do so. We don’t judge tigers morally for eating their young, we very much would do so for a fellow human though. There’s a clear difference in expectations here.

A lot of people might see a cat playing with a mouse before killing it and they think that the cat does it because it doesn’t know better, but I consider the question, what if the cat is simply cruel? We cannot know. In the same way, why do some humans do cruel things with no apparent reason? Is it because they are not rational?

What does that have to do with anything? You are not a cat. I expect roughly the same mental capacity from you than from myself. I know that I’m capable of critical thought, so I will assume the same about you. I can consider ethical considerations, so you can probably, too. And if you are able and can consider those I can judge your decision making accordingly. Causing avoidable harm is unethical, so eating meat for someone who could stay healthy with a vegan diet is unethical.

But yeah I guess you have a point in the sense that I don’t actually know if youre really able to think about those things. Someone with a very severe mental disability might lack the cognitive capacity to think about those things and couldn’t be judged for their behaviour. Although I must say if that’s you I’m impressed by your ability to hold a coherent conversation on a complicated electronic device.

It must be hard to live in a moden society if you can’t hold yourself to a higher standard than a tiger.

You are judging a tiger from a human centric perspective and making a claim that we know better than it.

I know that I know better. Don’t know if you do - but claiming you don’t says something pretty damning about your moral capacity.

My point is you can’t make a universal claim to the morality of humans killing other animals to sustain themselves since it is evidently how we evolved and our nature.

Oh yes I can. What you (and plebcouncilman as well) are doing here is a fallacy that was overcome in the 18th century. Something can very well be morally wrong despite being natural. Examples: Murder. Rape. Eating children. All very natural, horrible things which, fortunately, humanity largely rejects.

but that doesn’t mean the moral claim that killing animals is wrong can be applied to all human animals at all times.

No one is making such an absolutist claim. But generally speaking killing is not a good thing and should be avoided if possible. Unnecessarily killing animals, e.g. if you’re reasonably able to thrive on a vegan diet, can therefore very well be claimed to be unethical. And that has nothing to do with anthropocentrism and everything with our willingness to think about morality at all. What you wrote about industrialized society doesn’t change that, since we currently live in a industrialized society and must therefore judge the morality of our actions based on this given reality. Not to mention that with our current understanding of agriculture and science we could reduce our ecological impact without the need to kill animals at all. But all that misses the point.

You wrote that I’m “placing a higher moral agency on humans because [I] make some special distinction between humans and other animals”. At best that’s a bad argument, at worst it’s intellectually disingenuous, because you either do the same or you’re a child-eating psychopath. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and claim that you simply haven’t really thought about it much.

You are placing a higher moral agency on humans because you make some special distinction between humans and other animals.

Well, obviously. Because I believe I can be held to a higher standard than a tiger. They kill and eat disabled babies. Is that something you would deem acceptable for humans to do?

It looks like the spongebob-health-inspector-nasty-krabby-patty equivalent of an avocado. Probably rotted, tried to sprout, died, and rotted again.

That’s a really bad argument, sorry. Of course we place a higher moral agency on humans than on animals - otherwise you’d have yo argue that other atrocities like rape and murder shouldn’t be morally judged either.

A tiger cannot make moral decisions. You can. So you will be judged if you don’t.

Not to hold yourself to a higher standard morally than a literal predator would be downright psychopathic.

I have a cat just like yours with the same problem and can attest that it really does help. My fluffy guy really was no fan of the process, but he enjoyed summer much more afterwards. There really was an immediate change in his attitude, less apathic, more playful, cuddlier, and just happier overall. Will certainly do it again this year.

The Rogue storyline proves that New Who has a writing problem that has nothing to do with being too woke, and, in fact, at least in parts more with being not woke enough. What reason could there be to hint at, introduce, develop, carry out, end, and bury a love interest all within one single episode, if not as concession for people against those story line to be able to avoid it altogether? Disney isn’t actually progressive, they never were, and where corporate pride/POC representation is implemented it’s because the cost calculation tells them it pays off, not because they actually represent any of those values.

The Doctor would never give up on anyone. Heck, in the next episode he cried more about some random guard post than the man who proposed to him. Until he at least attempts to get Rogue back I will have to assume the Doctor has either been replaced by some kind of doppelganger, or the writers at Disney lack the balls to actually portray a modern and gay Doctor after all.

That wouldn’t be a problem at all if we had better science journalism. Every psychologist knows that “a study showed” means nothing. Consensus over several repeated studies is how we approximate the truth.

The psychological methodology is absolutely fine as long as you know it’s limitations and how to correctly apply it. In my experience that’s not a problem within the field, but since a lot of people think psychology = common sense, and most people think they excel at that, a lot of laypeople overconfidently interpret scientific resultst which leads a ton of errors.

The replication crisis is mainly a problem of our publications (the journals, how impact factors are calculated, how peer review is done) and the economic reality of academia (namely how your livelihood depends on the publications!), not the methodology. The methods would be perfectly usable for valid replication studies - including falsification of bs results that are currently published en masse in pop science magazines.

You know what sucks as well? Taking too many painkillers against headaches actually causes headaches. Horrible ones at that. Glad to read that you’re feeling better, but that’s a real trap many people out there are stuck in.

They are, which is why honey isn’t vegan, and you brought a very good argument for that yourself, namely that the industrial process behind it all tends to be quite brutal.

If you somehow knew nothing about each temperature unit, but you did know base 10, I feel like Fahrenheit would be more intuitive.

Would it though? Because it’s not like people who didn’t grew up with Fahrenheit can just intuitively use and interpret it. Maybe base ten is “more intuitive”, but I’d argue not to any meaningful degree. Both scales have to be explained, experienced, and tied to personal reference points.

If that was true outsiders should be able to use Fahrenheit without much explanation. I’ve never got a clue what the °F values mean, I always have to use a converter. It’s really not as intuitive as people who grew up with it seem to believe.