If you are gonna fake something like this, you wouldn’t actually shoot a bullet, you’d use a blank and some tiny blood pack like they use in movies.

I found that TNG, Voyager, and DS9 all started off rocky but really really grew on me to the point I was very sad to reach the end (even if the occasional episode was a bit of a miss)

Your question was deemed too stupid for No Stupid Questions

Not to detect from your final point, but I’m quite sure the point of this super dumb religious meme is the symbolic weight of the cross.

What if they close their eyes! Checkmate atheist.

Well look who’s being brutal now

I’m not trying to make a case for or against veganism, or hunting. My point is that “we are animals and animals sometimes do X” implying that makes it ok, is bad logic. Animals also sometimes eat their young, or murder or rape other creatures of the same species.

Now like I said, I’m not arguing against or for veganism here, I think there are good arguments for both sides, I just don’t think that the “we are animals” argument is one of them :)

I respect your viewpoint, but I wanted to point out that I think the argument of “animals do X, therefore it’s ok” isn’t a really good one, imo. In fact I think one of the features of being human is being able to rise above what other animals do, when we think it is a good idea. (Whether it’s a good idea here though, is another topic)

Calling a group of people condescending, then accusing them of having limited brain function is a little hypocritical doncha think?

I think part of the issue is people tend to conflate “does something immoral/less moral than an alternative” and “is a bad person”.

I think most meat eaters would acknowledge that meat is inherently worse for the environment, and also less moral due to more animal suffering, than not eating meat. Doing so does not make them bad people, just like owning an iPhone doesn’t make someone a bad person, etc. And yet when the topic of "meat is immoral " comes up, people very quickly seem to think it is an accusation of them being a bad person?

I’m not sure why you are making up imaginary arguments. Have you ever heard anyone ever accuse someone else of “not being vegan anymore” because they ate a non vegan product? I know quite a few vegans, I try to be vegan myself (but quite often cave, cheese is delicious), and all the vegans I know would be simply thrilled to know that someone was making an effort at all. Literally no one cares if you aren’t 100% vegan, basically no one is anyway. But if you decide once a week to eat a vegan meal instead of a steak, great!! That’s still helping the planet, better for the animals, etc.

But making up these ridiculous vegan cliches doesn’t help anyone, it just makes more people annoyed at each other.

But I mean, that’s literally what their ideas are, how else should they promote them? Are you mad that they aren’t just pretending that meat is good, for the benefit of the listeners?

Why is $20 even in consideration with the not needing sleep pill. Hell I’d probably choose the not need sleep pill over $20 million. It’s effectivity massively increasing your lifespan, but without making you outlive everyone you know

I think where the difference lies is that you are interpreting “cost X lives” to mean “cost X lifetimes of Human experience” while the interpretation I, and articles use is more like “cost X people their status of being alive”

That is not what costing something means. Cost is to lose something which you have, it does not mean to lose the potential to something you don’t have. If an apple costs a dollar, it means you had that dollar, and now you don’t. The impact of the apple was for the number of dollars you have to decrease by one. If you buy it with 100 dollars it obviously doesn’t cost 100 dollars because you get 99 dollars back.

When talking about lives, we don’t get them back. People have lives, and if something causes them to lose them, it means costs them a life.

If I own a car, then after ten years of owning and driving it, I trade it to buy something else, that thing still cost me a car. The amount of car I have does not decrease over time but through use. It’s quality might, but the count does not care about quality. Same with life. People who are middle-aged do not only have half a life, they are still fully alive.

How is the language extreme? For something to “cost lives” means exactly for those lives to be cut short, there is no other meaningful definition. The language used is exactly as extreme as the scenario it describes, by definition.

Do you apply your same logic to other scenarios too? Like would rather that “the tsunami cost the lives of 55 people” be reworded as “the tsunami shortened the lives of 55 people”?

You could say this about anything though. A serial killer isn’t taking lives, merely shortening them. Suicide isn’t ending a life it’s just shortening one. Literally all death can be seen as merely the shortening of an otherwise longer life, which makes your distinction pointless.

There is no need to eat any animal and yet as a society we seem to have no problem with mass meat industry. Now, I don’t disagree that there is hypocrisy in saying there is a focus on welfare, but I also feel some hypocrisy in there being outrage on some particular animals being eaten while other animals being eaten is fine.