@chumpyboi1@ramen_claw@meadowmagpie That's a problem of being un/misinformed and how the fact that your system of beliefs have some defects affects the set of things you value and want to pursue. There are a lot of things to take into account in debates like this, but you need to be open minded to track them
@chumpyboi1@ramen_claw@meadowmagpie So, the more optimal option,
if we consider a balance of costs and benefits, is to adopt a lifestyle based on b) and c), because the harm you prevent from being done in the world is really meaningful but not at the expense of living a normal life
@chumpyboi1@ramen_claw@meadowmagpie There are four options, that result from the combination of four options: a) eating animals; b) its negation; c) using a phone; d) its negation. Both a) and c) bring harm to the world, but the personal costs of giving up a) are far less impactful than the ones of giving up c)
@libisumbrae@GunnerTas But that's not Neil's fault. We should start to understand that the rest of living beings have a right to live and flourish too. Killing him will never be an ethical solution