I tried to watch it and kinda gave up. I tried to accept that it would be at most a reference to the book, but i still, just, couldnt.

https://www.thelamboy.com/comics/love-must-hate-evil

Crappy movie? Yes.

Come from? No.

Ironically, i watched the [REDACTED] before i read the books, so i enjoyed it. Then i read the books and felt really dumb for enjoying the [REDACTED] as much as i did.

Best for who? Depending on your answer, you are unequivocally right.

B, because position and speed are relative,

it would slow the train down equal to the momentum gained by the people.

There are only 33 people in the line though.

Either you get to 33 and there are no more and the track just ends or it’s “nuke the planet” or dont for everyone else above 33.

Nah. Thats not racist. Stating that countries primarily populated by non-whites are somehow too weak or lazy to fight for themselves, however, is definitely pretty racist.

Bro, you went so far that you actually became racist yourself. You literally said: “Do help themselves” == “white” “Don’t help themselves” == “not white”

You are pushing the american stereotype for “lazy immigrants”

Thats kinda cringe tbh.

No no no. We FIXED them. Imagine being br*tish. Putting random “u”s in words. ColOur hOnoUr mOuLd. Imagine having a whole letter that only the 1%ers can even pronounce (its “t” pronounced like “s” but with a burst of air instead of a stream of air, and more pressure from the tongue onto the hard palate). We turned linguistic drift into linguistic power-slide.

Any time i hear a br*tish “person” talking, regardless of location or occasion, i rev my Ford f-450 supermax lifted truck (from which i removed the muffler) as hard as i can. This produces three strictly beneficial effects:

1 i can no longer hear the br*t “talking” 2 all of the smoke blocks sight of who is talking 3 the beautiful aroma that comes from the powerful black smoke reminds me of the most important things in life freedom, privatized healthcare, and tea in the ocean.

Cool. I don’t know if that aligns the the current theory and frankly, don’t care enough to research it.

But that doesn’t disprove my statement. Unless all matter juices itself into energy, heat will exist. heat is a property of matter unless said matter is at -273 C (which seems impossible that that is the temperature for the universe to settle on)

But… I’m not a theoretical physicist and you probably aren’t one either. So we are both out of our depth.

Heat - A form of energy associated with the motion of atoms or molecules

That would still exist. However a “concept” being defined as an idea, would not exist as there would be no living thing to think it up.

So heat would exist, the “concept of heat” wouldn’t. So your first statement is technically correct. Your second statement is wrong by the primary definition of heat.

Kinda? All energy will dissipate until everything is the same temperature. Idk what that temperature will be but it might be pretty cold. But heat won’t just, like, go away. It will homogenize.

Exactly. Encounter building/balancing doesn’t stop at initiative.

Upon reading this, i feel like an immeasurably large fool. I lost to my wife yesterday when IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED

Even in your examples you are treating animals as less than human. Why? Again, where is the line that involuntary trespassing is punishable by immediate death? If a person bit you, yeah you could fight them off and use force. But, to be compare fairly, you would have to kill the person that bit you. Even then this is still an unfair argument because

1. That is not typical human behavior
2. A human bite can do substantially more damage than a mosquito bite.

So tell me where you can treat animals ethically identically as humans, and where you can’t. Where is the line?

I wouldnt completely agree. I think using something other than your conscience is somewhat disingenuous. For the most part, any inconsistencies have been from personal growth/change. I live my life so that i can sleep at night.

As far as stopping meat consumption. Yes that is something that i can do. I believe the moral implications of doing that are minimal, simply because animals and humans have different ethical considerations. But this is getting off topic.

I claimed there wasn’t much i could do to improve the morality of meat consumption (ie Ethical living conditions, reduced scale etc.) . It’s like i wanted to make cars more fuel efficient and you told me to ride a bike. It sidesteps the claim and proves a point i wasn’t arguing.

I as a single person, with limited time and limited funds can’t change how large companies mass butcher livestock, not without sacrificing other things i value more.

There is an assumption here that i don’t think of right and wrong. Which isn’t true, as evidenced by this entire comment chain. My morality is based off of my conscience, and it has a final say in how i act. But I still think and explore ethically difficult situations to determine what is right, wrong, or grayish.

I just didnt describe my entire ethical schema, because, as i said i am lazy. Lazy and self-aware enough to know that there is not much i can or will do to improve the morality of meat consumption. And honestly, that specific problem is pretty low on my list of ethical dilemmas. But it’s fun to talk about.

Thank you for the definition. I think it is wrong. But i appreciate it nonetheless.

My reasoning is that, while it may have started as a theistic word, it isn’t anymore. When someone says it i don’t think “a creation of God” i just think of like, an animal. Definitions change over time.

Yeah, i completely agree that i am painting with broad strokes. I knew a guy that ate vegan because he believed it was healthier, not for any moral considerations at all.

I am mostly trying to strike up some conversation about the ethics of eating meat. I think your answer is as correct as any could be. It really is up to the individual to make their own determinations.