Gays should get out and stay out

they make me feel bad for those animals, but they do not make me feel guilt for eating meat.

You are literally

Literally

Literally

Paying them to continue to do it. You should feel guilty.

cutting out all food that tastes good from my diet is not easy, sorry.

You've got to have some shit-ass cooking skills if you can't prepare a meal without meat that tastes good.

maybe it is sub-optimal, but I feel no guilt for eating a delicious piece of chicken, and there's nothing I can do to make myself feel guilt for that.

Go find footage of the inside of a farm ran by Tyson. You'll get your dosage of guilt.

of all the things I do wrong, that's at the very bottom of the list of things I would care about. all human problems, even the tiniest ones, are of more concern than animal problems to me.

And yet you're probably barely active in those departments, too. You literally would just need to cut your consumption of certain kinds of foods. How insanely easy.

Like, I don't really give a shit if you acknowledge that eating meat from factory farms is wrong. If someone says "I know I'm doing something immoral, but I don't have the willpower to stop," then I think, "Okay, you can admit your flaws. Moving on." I don't think my family is a bunch of disgusting pigs with no moral compass because they eat steak sometimes.

But if you get into an argument about it, and actually try to justify it, claiming nothing is wrong, I think you're pretty dense.

Highways don't bug me.

Now, driving in cities? That's fucked.

Driving is my favorite thing to do, honestly. A nice, long ride with music blasting is basically my definition of heaven.

My job and daily life involves having to stare in the direction of the Sun, so I need them.

being called psychotic for holding a common ordinary ethical stance is something I would take as an insult.

Who cares? Slavery use to be the literal backbone of American agriculture, and right now, are you telling me that the belief you can own another human being isn't deplorable and "Insane?" The fact that something is a "Common" belief doesn't mean anything, plenty of times throughout history we can now see the majority of people were wrong about things.

there's a lot of opposing ethical stances I could describe as psychotic, but I don't because it's simply a prick move, and it's not accurate because people don't hold those views out of psychosis. you know this. people who eat meat and don't feel bad about it aren't psychotic, to say so is stupid, ignorant, and judgmental.

You're putting words in my mouth. I never said "If you eat meat, you're a psychopath," I said if you think that intelligence is a legitimately smart way to judge whether or not you can torture something for your convenience, then you're a psychopath. And that's exactly what you were just trying to pass off as rational.

If you want to discuss this, don't insult me. I thought we were done with that years ago.

I didn't insult you. I said that if you actually believe lower intelligence is a justification for inflicting pain, then you're a psychopath. That is a psychotic mentality.

I have all the empathy in the world, but not for animals that aren't even aware of their own existence. In fact, by definition you can't have empathy for unintelligent animals. Empathy is to place oneself in another person's shoes, but you can't do that with an animal because they aren't conscious. You can't imagine what it would be like to be a cow because cows don't experience things in the same way we do.

Go stab yourself with a knife and then tell me how it feels. Did you like it? No, of course you didn't. The cow doesn't, either. It has nothing to do with the fact that animals are "Dumber" than people, they're still capable of feeling distress and pain to an extent that absolutely warrants prevention, especially when your excuse is as miserable as "But they taste good!" You're a psychopath if you think that because somebody or something is less intelligent than you are, you have more of a right to inflict suffering onto them.

If you're going to say it's wrong to eat chicken, than it's also wrong to step on ants. But living like that is absurd, because every day you'd be killing various animals unintentionally no matter what you do.

They aren't even remotely comparable, because insects do not feel pain in a way that's comparable to animal senses.

I mean, Learn to Fly by the Foo Fighters is one of my favorite songs of all time, and the Foo Fighters are my favorite band.

I'd say they're very mainstream rock.

THEY'RE COWS

NOT PEOPLE

REEEEEEEEEE

See, when someone says "I know eating meat from factory farms is wrong, and I admit that," it's one thing. I can respect somebody who acknowledges what they're doing something immoral, but they don't have the drive to stop. But when someone just says, "Heh it's a cow, I don't give a fuck," that's when I get legitimately upset with somebody. That's psychotic, and because you base that belief on Christianity and having "Dominion" over animals, it's another reason why I think religion is supah bad.

Like, you're just causing a bunch of things pain, but don't care at all. That's what bothers me. You have no empathy.

You generally don't know- That's sort of the point of science. Exploring ideas and phenomena that didn't seem to have any appreciable effects on peoples' lives have and will continue to lead to new and practical discoveries. The entire point of science is to be curious about the world and figure out how it works. People then see what sorts of practical applications you can get out of it, but sometimes you look in areas that don't deliver, and that's okay. Maybe you do find something useful, but it doesn't actually prove itself to be useful for many hundreds of years. That's okay, too. Many people throughout history died not knowing the impact their work would have on the future.

I would never discourage curiosity because I think that's a terrible thing to do. People are curious about the universe and a lot of people find some inspiration in the sense of wonder that it carries to understand more about where we exist and how we got here. When you do things like this, you can give new knowledge to the public, and sometimes that knowledge clicks right in the minds of a group of kids and they decide they want to learn more about things, too. Maybe one gets interested in biology just at the thought of "Wow, look at what these scientists did!" and becomes a doctor, or one gets the next Nobel prize in physics. You can't know with things like this, but when you set out to learn about anything and that knowledge inspires thought, I don't think it's a bad investment.

Just if someone's looking for figures, NASA's budget accounts for less than half of a percent of federal spending (0.486%), and only about one-fifth of NASA's expenses actually go into space exploration and research. That's 0.0972% of federal spending, which is just... Really not a lot. There are other areas of government spending that I would target first if I'm going on a hunt for "Wastes of money," but that's just how I view it.

Space exploration isn't the most practical thing in the world, I know that (At least, not yet). But I do get upset when people try to pass it off as a total waste of money that has no benefits at all. That's just not true, if you ask me.

was it better than the babadook

I didn't think that the Babadook was honestly that good, but take what I say with a grain of salt- I watched that movie in a pretty inconsistent way because it was on while I was at a party. But even as someone who really doesn't get into horror movies, I think this is a great one to go see in theaters with your friends just to have the shit scared out of you. Even barring the horror elements, the film was genuinely interesting and enjoyable.

Usually horror films are awful at developing characters so that you actually feel concerned when they're in danger, and when someone dies, I just don't care. But this entire film, any time someone was at risk, I was legitimately upset at the thought of something happening to them.

It's mistakes like this--and I'm just ONE example--that separate the good parents from the bad parents. Good parents don't exist because the mistakes that parents make, no matter how small, can lead to catastrophic results. Even if your child ended up happy and successful in adulthood, that doesn't make you a good parent. It makes you lucky.

I don't believe that the entirety of whether or not parents can be said to have properly raised their child is determined by luck. At least, not primarily. Sure, there are some influences and facets of life that can't be controlled, even by parents who sincerely place the well-being of their child above all else, but I still don't think that making the blanket statement "All parents are bad" is accurate. A parent who has done everything possible to ensure their kids live healthy and happy lives is doing, as far as the term "Parenting" goes, as "Good" a job as could ever be asked of them.

My issue with the original statement was that it's redundant to say, from either his or your perspective (I don't know how closely they align), "Good parents do not exist." The root of that idea, where you say that because they had kids, they are bad parents, doesn't follow. If you're a parent, you've already brought a child into existence, so the original moral quandary about the ethics of creating a new person are thrown out the door. You can say you're a bad person for having a kid, but you can't say, when they're born, that the parents are somehow "Bad" at parenting. Parenting is the process of raising someone, not making the decision to birth them.