I’m not sure which question it’s begging, but my point is that it’s possible to be ethical about multiple things at once, and the overall goal is to cause less suffering in the world, from the perspective of sentient creatures, and from the the perspectives of humans who provide food. Raising animals in order to be…

By using the best information we have available to make the most ethical decisions. It’s not a line, it’s a disposition, an outlook that can evolve. E.g., some vegans eat oysters: http://www.slate.com/articles/life/…. It’s about being thoughtful.

Also, sorry, meant to number 1-5.

Do you get that this worldview could include eating oysters as well?

I mean I think it’s possible also to say it’s ethical for you to eat meat, in the same way it’s ethical for actual carnivores to eat meat, but for most people it’s frivolous.

1. Meat is not necessary for survival
2. It causes unnecessary suffering to other living animals who don’t want to die
3. It puts arbitrary values on some animals over other animals
3. The way humans know how to eat meat causes constant suffering during the animals’ lives on top of their predestined deaths
4. The way…

If you consider the ethics of your food, you will find all of the above. Eating meat is unethical, as well as supporting abhorrent labor practices and disrupting the economy and nourishment of a country in service of globalism.

You haven’t made an argument for eating meat, you’ve made an argument for not eating avocados and quinoa. A good one, and yes it’s important to think of ethical considerations generally.

If this were true, the optimal solution would be to not classify sports by gender, but to put everyone in the same boat and divide by tiered levels of competition. The upside of separating men and women sports, is that it’s empowering to feel like you’re the top of your game at some fundamental level. Putting everyone…

This is the crux of #BlackLivesMatter. The invisibility and vulnerability of black lives in America is the rule, not the exception.

“It didn’t work out, but I’m glad you’re happy?”

Cheating on him didn’t change the rules, their discussion afterwards did. Part of the question for them was, is kissing someone else a fundamental blow to their relationship? It turns out for them, it wasn’t. I don’t understand commenters denying the author his agency. They both see other parters, they communicate…

Hillary’s indistinguishable from these dudes.

But white supremacy was built in to both the USSR and the US’ empire building during the Cold War.

You don’t actually seem that concerned about his wellbeing, you want them to fail. You want their worldview to fail. In anycase, you have to consider that they have found an honest, loving, and even ideal partnership. Both of them have accepted various possibilities resulting from both of them both meeting other…

He’s not scared shitless, he’s aware of the risks of an open relationship, that’s why he wrote about it. He’s the one who acknowledged the possibility, not you.

The author is aware that’s a possibility as well. It’s a possibility that he finds someone else too.

They don’t have any problems, you’re projecting.

But wives can also take on lovers in this brave new world.

Or, she found a partner she trusts and with whom she can explore life with.