But then why spend so much money on a phone? I also don't care about the specs of my phone, but this means I usually buy some $100 phone that gets the job done for a couple years.
I genuinely don't see a reason why someone would buy an iPhone besides as a fashion accessory/ status symbol
I'm sorry but how is a couple million "not rich"
This doesn't answer the question at all though?
Is the entity an immortal snail?
Norway. There are many reasons, but the big big one for me is the absolutely incredible nature AND the ability to properly enjoy it via Wildcamping. Being able to simply venture out into the forest for a weekend is such a nice thing.
To be fair, this applies to any bed
I like this, but I think that the goal to be tested must be a set of tests which are agreed upon by a large majority, not just the current party in power. That way there can be tests as to how effective the law is, but also tests whether it is having other unwanted side effects.
A pot plant which he might try take care of for a while before realising it's plastic, but has already grown attached to it.
I'm currently reading a book which argues that "most people, deep down, are actually pretty decent". It's really good, highly recommend to anyone. It's called "Human Kind" by Rutger Bregman
Well first, I don't think that "is ok to eat meat" is a moral. But it's true that humans haven't tended to find it immoral (though there are exceptions to this in certain cultures, regarding certain meats).
But you make a good point, and I think the answer is that since humans make morals based on their circumstances, and the circumstances of society can and does change, then certain morals become less relevant compared to others. Murder is a fairly constant moral, because regardless of how a society changes, a murderous individual is gonna be bad for it. But on the other hand, there used to be pretty strong morals regarding how dead bodies were treated; you leave them alone. And this used to make sense, since people who messed with dead bodies were likely to get diseases and spread them. But as medicine and science and hygiene improved, this became less relevant as compared to the need to investigate dead bodies to improve understanding of disease and human biology. So our common morals regarding respect for the dead changed.
For veganism, it used to be for most societies that they couldn't afford to simply not eat things, unless they were poisonous. So this need overwhelmed morals of kindness to nature and animals, even though this moral of kindness was still there (respecting nature is a moral found in very many cultures). But in modern day when we now have an abundance of food to the point of large waste, the need to eat whatever you can is no longer as important, and the moral of kindness to animals (and the environment) can be expressed more freely.
And indeed, I think the vast majority of vegans would agree that eating meat is not inherently immoral if there is no other choice, it's only when meat is chosen over other alternatives that it becomes immoral, because it is unnecessary.
Sorry for the wall of text
That's a fair point, I was mostly thinking that many people consume far too much meat, and that reducing it would be healthy, but if it's only being replaced with trash then it wouldn't be any better
I mean surely its a negative? You might like Xbox/switch in spite of the closed ecosystem, but wouldn't they be better if they had an open ecosystem?