My post is about animals being killed for food. Your attempt to hijack it with presuppositions isn't going to work here.
Discussion
I'm only presupposing we are using the same words consistently
I always find it interesting that the knee jerk reaction to someone talking about having a complex understanding of sentience and ethics across species is to assume they couldn't possibly have a complex understanding of sentience and ethics across species.
🎯
Don't go too far, you're still in this kiddy pool. Feed moxie some chopped chicken chunks and come join the discussion 😉
I would love to talk about ethics and the concept and origins of objective morality, but nobody wants to come play in the sandbox.
Let’s agree on objective truth first before even discussing morality. You can’t even pin the modern mind down on 2 + 2 = 4
It's true, but most people on nostr can agree on the fact that there will ever only be 21 mil Bitcoin, so I take this as a given while ironing out the inconsistencies 😅
That doesn't seem at all knee jerk. It is a rather extravagant claim and thus one should ask for ample evidence. To start it is important to understand what the claim actually is and is not. The question of the grounded basis of ethics even among humans is not a slam dunk. Across species seems harder. Characterizing those with questions as having a "knee jerk reaction" doesn't seem very fruitful.
The question is whether you are consistent in your ethics. Are you?