I imagine a lot of people have the air on for indoor animals while they go to the office.

I believe we seek to arrive at universal morals. When we discuss atrocities, I don't see any reason to frame concerns for the well-being of others as personal preference. Their well-being is outside myself. The concern is for their own sake, not mine. I think you're in contradiction because you are once again saying you don't get to override the moral autonomy of others but simultaneously concede that you oppose atrocities that the moral autonomy of others permit. If I had the option to stop another society (where the majority of that society are in agreement on the action) from engaging in arbitrary genocide of their own citizens, I'd do that. The idea that you would find my action to stop them less permissible than their own tells me you lack conviction for your own values.

If for some reason he medically required heme-iron, I'd rather publicly subsidize the price difference for them to eat impossible meat as that does contain heme-iron. No more requirement to rely on animal products for that. As far as I'm aware though, it's just a concern of absorption rate. If the absorption rate is the concern they should just focus on taking a higher dosage supplement - which would not require heme-iron.

Zero sum game that requires my own death to achieve - seems a reasonable request compared to a request to not participate in the forcible birthing of billions of animals into exploitative confinement until they are killed at our convenience for eternity, or the unecessary trawling of trillions of them.

Or we can seek to achieve what is possible, and work out what isn't over time. You describe a technical problem. That aside can you even empirically prove that more animals die in agricultural fields than in nature? I'm all in favor of reducing those deaths but is it actually any worse than if we let the existing fields reforest? I don't see your point as analogous to my own concerns.

Foundationally we already disagree, as I'm a moral objectivist. To assert moral subjectivity is to assert that moral progress does not exist. But with your edit your argument is actually now even worse IMO, because instead of focusing on a moral relativist position you're now basically saying morality=culture/law. i.e., since you have no say in what another society does without disrupting their agreed practice, all their actions are permissible. Bigotry is permissible. Slavery is permissible, hangings are permissible, genocide is permissible, etc, just so long as it simultaneously does not occur within proximity to you and rejects your preference. I think you are tolerant of intolerance.

OP's post itself is bait. Funny haha gif does not address the victims at all.

Oh boy, another dogshit kill animals hehe meme. Very funny maymay community. Psuedoprogressive animal abusers the lot of ya. There is not enough resources on Earth to quench your never ending demand for bodies. Just have ten trillion kids who all definitely have the opportunity to eat just as many animals as you do! Primitive zero brain cell fools. I'd throw you all out of Athens.

Oh neat, appreciate that info. That makes more sense.

Could be the 'becky lemme smash' vids with the Raven. There's older origins but its probably from that.

Look i realize you're getting questioned here so you got defensive but I'm literally just asking what your conservative values are. We agree that feeding children is incontroversial but the republican leaders do not seem to agree and you've made a few claims as to your positions in the thread that seem to continue tbe trend of misaligning with American conservative leaders. Just tell me what your priorities are generally that don't align with democrats because so far you sound like a dem. The floor is yours. Make me have more understanding of conservatives values.

Okay, so it sounds like given the present situation you are abstaining to vote, voting third party, or are voting democrat until republican leaders get their nonsense together. That said, what exactly is it that makes you identify as conservative? Clearly it has to be something outside of present American political theater. Is it one of those 'fiscal responsibility' things? It seems like you are fine with social programs.

Aside from any impracticality that could arise in implementation, I like the idea of federated communities between servers. I mean why not extend the possibilities of federation even further? Community mods or users could de/federate from communities on other servers with the same names or core themes should they so choose. In consideration of difficulties with moderating spam and other materials from other communities generated with the same name, I think it makes sense for that kind of community federation to be opt-in rather than opt-out.

If it goes the Reddit route, one of those communities will definitely border on dead and the risk for moderators/servers having too much power/influence within the larger communities continues.