One might even say, full sphere.
One might even say, full sphere.
Why not just one, like “I wish this wish were a paradox” or something
You make it sound so easy, but mountain lions are notoriously good liars.
I respect your viewpoint, but I wanted to point out that I think the argument of “animals do X, therefore it’s ok” isn’t a really good one, imo. In fact I think one of the features of being human is being able to rise above what other animals do, when we think it is a good idea. (Whether it’s a good idea here though, is another topic)
But I mean, that’s literally what their ideas are, how else should they promote them? Are you mad that they aren’t just pretending that meat is good, for the benefit of the listeners?
Weet-bix. Australia
I’m not sure the sugar argument holds, plenty of animals naturally eat foods with sugar, and do not brush their teeth. Of course they don’t eat nearly as much sugar as a typical human, but that doesn’t mean that sugar should always be avoided.
For cats specifically though I am not sure, maybe all sugar is bad, but I don’t think it’s because of teeth brushing.
This seems incredibly adult to me 😅
SNOW!!!
I think where the difference lies is that you are interpreting “cost X lives” to mean “cost X lifetimes of Human experience” while the interpretation I, and articles use is more like “cost X people their status of being alive”
That is not what costing something means. Cost is to lose something which you have, it does not mean to lose the potential to something you don’t have. If an apple costs a dollar, it means you had that dollar, and now you don’t. The impact of the apple was for the number of dollars you have to decrease by one. If you buy it with 100 dollars it obviously doesn’t cost 100 dollars because you get 99 dollars back.
When talking about lives, we don’t get them back. People have lives, and if something causes them to lose them, it means costs them a life.
If I own a car, then after ten years of owning and driving it, I trade it to buy something else, that thing still cost me a car. The amount of car I have does not decrease over time but through use. It’s quality might, but the count does not care about quality. Same with life. People who are middle-aged do not only have half a life, they are still fully alive.
How is the language extreme? For something to “cost lives” means exactly for those lives to be cut short, there is no other meaningful definition. The language used is exactly as extreme as the scenario it describes, by definition.
Do you apply your same logic to other scenarios too? Like would rather that “the tsunami cost the lives of 55 people” be reworded as “the tsunami shortened the lives of 55 people”?
You could say this about anything though. A serial killer isn’t taking lives, merely shortening them. Suicide isn’t ending a life it’s just shortening one. Literally all death can be seen as merely the shortening of an otherwise longer life, which makes your distinction pointless.
Well my parents don’t like it when I call them dinosaurs.