50% (or more) of the content they will be releasing going forward will be IP tie-ins.

Sourdough with chunky peanut butter, ground mustard, and aioli.

I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perverse_incentive

I never really made an argument, only said that I found the OPs argument strange without further context. I was probing OPs argument because they gave some reasoning for what they found different about killing a bear and killing a deer, but didn’t really elucidate the moral differences. Even if you take it for granted that OP is correct that people hunt deer specifically for food and bears specifically for sport, they didn’t really clarify why one was such an awful thing and the other was not.

Instead of clarifying things they just repeated themselves and hit me with the same irrelevant false dichotomy. Since I took for granted their theory of why people hunt certain animals it was irrelevant if I knew anything about hunting because I was not contesting anything about the practice of hunting. And whether I kill bears would also not be relevant to the discussion. This is why to me it doesn’t feel like they are having a good faith discussion.

I know the term speciesism but am not read up enough about it to say whether I would fit that perspective. Personally I don’t believe a human and a bear and a deer are equal, or even two humans are equal, just equal in certain ways that matter when discussing things like the right to their life.

And taking a life can be justified. But I personally would not take a life for food as there are other things to eat. Even if OP believes that neither deer nor bears have the right to life though, I’m curious what line of reasoning would bring someone to think the act of taking one’s life is monstrous and taking another’s noble. Surely to believe such a thing there must at least be some kind of great cost attributed to at the very least killing that bear, and I am curious why that cost would not be also an attribute of killing the deer or be neutralized by the boon of deer meat vs a trophy or the satisfaction of hunting (which the OP claims to be the only reasons someone would hunt a predator, but I can come up with more).

The morality of the situation is certainly an emotional subject for me. But in conversations like these I’m mostly approaching it out of curiosity as I acknowledge that most people find these things normal and am more interested about why they find these things normal or what justifications they come up with on the spot. I believe most people don’t really know why they find these things normal, I’m not sure I really knew why I found them normal before I was myself questioned.

That’s because your question doesn’t progress any argument. Unlike the question I asked you which was meant to probe your reasoning. it’s the kind of thing a troll would ask. It’s also a false dichotomy. I’m perfectly fine with you discontinuing as I frankly didn’t expect to get a reply that continued the discussion in good faith after your first reply.

Everything you say is based on convention and nature and opinion. You never addressed what I said and in your own words “rearticulated” (more like regurgitated) the same points that you have yet to give merit to.

Katana Zero
Celeste
Cuphead
Opus Magnum

So your argument is that it’s wasteful? And that food is a better justification for the waste than making a trophy?

You can make trophies out of things that aren’t bears and you can eat things that aren’t deer, so I’m not sure how they are much different unless your argument is that eating specifically deer is important somehow and making trophies out of bears is not.

What a fucking weird take. Hunting is fine but only some animals. Something about the natural order yadayada.

Are we allowed to kink shame whatever this is?

generalization that must be made

No such generalization has to be made, what?

If you make a rule

Why does saying someone did the right thing require you to make a rule?

Turns out having a value proposition beyond “we bundled a lot of software together that you can get on any distro” has allure.

Most politicians in the West don’t actually care about humanitarian issues in China. That has almost nothing to do with why we don’t play nice.

The liver is one of the most complex organs in the human body. It is responsible for a wide spectrum of toxin breakdown and chemical synthesis. The heart only needs to pump blood, though it’s uptime is very impressive. If your liver stops working you won’t die immediately but if your heart stops working your body will be starved of oxygen in mere minutes. Ultimately though what the heart does is mechanical and simple.

I wouldn’t advocate for someone eating palm oil simply for their own personal health. However if you want to talk about the environment way more land is cleared for livestock than oil palm, even if you just focus on the locations where oil palm is grown. And palm oil is usually replacing animal fats in cooking due to it’s saturated fat content, stuff like lard and ghee.

Then shouldn’t it either be changed to “of any cause” or terminate after “dying”.

The brain doesn’t do so well in isolation of stimulus for a long period of time.

Yes, the foods that are high in omega 3s and 6s like fish, nuts, and seeds tend to be low in saturated fat and high in unsaturated fat compositionally. So it is not necessary to consume a lot of saturated fat in our diets, we should avoid coconut oil, palm oil, butter, and lard wherever possible.

Eating refined sugar is bad for you, we should avoid things like sugary beverages for example. But this does not mean that whole fruit is bad for us, and definitely doesn’t mean that whole veg and grain is bad for us. The fiber in fruit blunts the effects of the fructose, interestingly fiber also blunts the effects of saturated fat from whole coconuts.

People love telling this mythology about how the low fat guidelines made us sick, but it’s pretty much bunk. People didn’t follow the guidelines for the most part as macro ratios have hardly varied over time in the US. Corporations also leveraged the idea to sell junk foods as healthier alternatives by lowering the fat content, but keeping or even raising the amount of refined carbohydrates.

Nobody in this conversation is saying sugar is good for you. I was just pushing back against the OP of this chain who said that meat is of no concern to diabetics, and said sugar and other carbohydrates are the main culprit. Other carbohydrates would even include fiber which would be quite beneficial to diabetics. But also from the studies I’ve seen I’d be more worried about someone who puts a spoonful of coconut oil or butter in their coffee than someone who puts a spoonful or two of sugar, and not just because of diabetes but cardiovascular disease as well.