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

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.

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

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.

I understand that completely, death isn’t where the suffering usually occurs. This brings me to another question that i proposed in response to a different comment.

I had family that raised a cow to eventually become meat. It was named Tasty and lived up to its namesake. Tasty was treated well and killed quickly and cleanly. Is that, like, bad?

I mean, sometimes its ethical. Its kind of unnecessary (and therefore immoral) at the scale of modern meat farms. But on a more individual level with like subsistence hunting/livestock, i dont feel like there are any ethical problems. Like if you need food or you will die, animals lives are worth less than humans lives…

There’s is a popular school of thought that the diet‘s sole purpose to reduce suffering. If a living thing has no central nervous system (or brain), it has no thoughts and cannot experience pain or harm.

What about instant death? Like a farmer putting down a well-treated cow with a bullet to the head. In this scenario, the cow never suffered. In all likelihood it probably never even had much mental distress, let alone fear of death. Would that meat be ethical/vegan friendly?

So is this theory of veganism to not cause pain to an animal? If so what about ethically sourced meat. Like bullet to the head/decapitation. Most of those creatures feel nothing, they just end.

Or is it to not eat anything that comes from the an organism from the Animalia kingdom because harming animals is immoral?

After proofreading, these sound more aggressive/argumentative than i had intended but they get the point across.

How would you define creature?