I would say if the animal was more happy in the life before it was eaten then not, it is completely fine to eat it.

Should more people stop eating caged animal products? Yes.

Should more people refuse to support ethical farms in which livestock are given a time period to enjoy being alive in contrast to never existing in the first place (in the case of the farm not existing). Unless there is a medical concern (i.e. allergy), I don't see any reason to.

How 'perfect, loving,' God deals with a subject even though he 'loves us all.' "Hey David, you should kill Goliath with a slingshot. I'll help you out."

Maybe I would be better off with a diary of people murdered with a slingshot

(p.s. I forgot to make this a dispute and can't fix it)

"So therefore, my answers to thes mass shootings has nothing to do with gun restrictions because we know it does not work."

Seriously???

Let's do some comparison here:

America - Someone decides to shoot people. They then buy a semi automatic gun at the local walmart and kill tens of people very quickly during a hormonal impulse.

Australia - Someone decides to shoot people. They are under 18 and can't get a gun. Or they are over 18, but cannot provide a legitimate reason to get one (which would be checked). Ok, they managed to come up with a reason. Now they have to wait several weeks and complete licensing before they can actually get a gun, in which time their impulse has probably died. But now assume it's deeper. They are limited only to a gun which they must manually reload. They use this to shoot 1-2 people before being overpowered or having all their potential victims escape.

Big difference. Gun laws do work, it's just the US's 'No we can't possibly be self preservative because we're too busy conforming to everyone else who says guns are good,' culture is preventing it from happening.

Also, people can claim to be Christian and blatantly ignore any actual words in the bible which don't agree with their actions. It happens all the time.

The bible was constructed over 2000 years ago, where things were very different. Sure, many of it's morals are still useful, but it cannot adapt to changes in the world and should not be used as an absolute basis for whether or not something is morally acceptable.

While the concept of a password/pin is a useful way to manage finances etc, with our current technology there are many alternatives such as fingerprints, voice recognition and so on. These alternatives, if implemented instead, would negate the need for such security over a number. Additionally, false purchases etc would be much more easy to recognise/dispute if you could identify whether or not the purchaser was the same person as the owner of the money they were using, which is not viable in the current degree of information restrictions.

Ps I don't have a SSN. :)

In this instance whoever cut the last rope would be responsible.

Using this logic, you would be responsible for the death of the drowning person. Since the option for you to save him occurred after the event which made him begin drown, your inactivity would be the last event before the person drowned, and in fact imply that the event which initiated his drowning was not responsible.

Also, causation might not be a simple no either. The opposite of refusing to help is helping someone which could have saved them, in which the drowning person may have survived. So the act of not saving the person could be said to be a cause (not the unique cause but one of them) of his drowning.

Except, humour is typically generated only by something being strange or abnormal. For example, if pigs were not consumed then it may be perceived that herding pigs would be a funny profession, by due to the commonplace of it it currently is not. As humour is very subjective to the immediate context, I do not think there would be a significant long term improvement in the frequency of people laughing as a result of cat herding becoming a viable profession.

Unlike traditional livestock such as pigs and sheep, there are many health risks involved in creating food products from carnivorous creatures such as cats and dogs. These come with a much larger risk of parasites and diseases contractible by humans, while herbivores tend to contract comparitively much fewer diseases which can be passed on to humans. Ensuring it is not legal to eat these animals creates a much safer food environment and helps to prevent the spread of things such as worms which can be difficult to cure and greatly reduce a persons productivity during this period.

Information is the basis for all decisions and control in life. It brings us security, efficiency and without it, we could never improve or learn from our mistakes. So why should such a fundamental asset to progress be withheld?

The restriction of information is key in unbalancing the outcome of an action, often at significant cost to the ignorant party. For example, in many food products people are restricted from learning how the animals are treated, which can result in conflicts of ethics by people who would never support animal cruelty funding it out of unawareness.

Conflicts such as these would be much more easily resolvable if the information was freely avaliable, and with the world wide web now commonplace it would not be difficult to acheive, allowing people to follow their ethics and to ensure people have a say in decisions which affect them, rather than just being used to support an individual at cost to many people.

Except it isn't torcher...abortion is done very efficiently in order to prevent a torcherous life if the baby cannot be cared for.