Opinion of the quote: "Our grandchildren will look at us...as slaveholder equivalents"

[SWE]

It forgot to mention the mass murder of animals.

How exactly does one "murder" an animal?

By killing them?

Murder is the killing of a human being. I understand that maroon avatars enjoy world-building, and that they often invent imaginative and wacky new definitions for preexisting words, but do try to be aware of when you’re speaking to those of us whose understanding of English is still grounded in reality.

What do you get out of pretending to be stupid?

Make stupid comments, get stupid replies.

Do you get confused when someone says it's raining cats and dogs and then you look outside and there are no animals falling from the sky?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

It forgot to mention the mass murder of animals.

How exactly does one "murder" an animal?

By killing them?

Murder is the killing of a human being.

The word "murder" is used in two basic ways.  One is as a legal term, and the other is as a personal moral judgment.  You are using the first definition, and according to that one you are correct.  However, the second definition of murder is much more subjective, and using that one, a person might well view the killing of animals for reasons s/he considers unjust to be murder.  

Aren't you the guy that said hunting was the greatest moral failure of noted philanderer and killer of Vietnamese children Lyndon Johnson?

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

while we bear some responsibility for the things we directly choose to do, most of our everyday choices are dictated by forces far beyond out control

A big part of the first half of this discussion was about Left Twitter that worships at the altar of Shein because they and their poor friends deserve to have an endless supply of fashionable clothes while not paying the true cost. Those consumers all of a sudden cover their eyes and ears when presented with how they are responsible for global harm and injustices because they are not dogmatic but just as selfish as anyone else in their consumerist desires. I think those are very active choices compared to the vegan case but maybe I just don't agree with that.

While this was mostly just a bronz threaf, your genuine replies are greatly appreciated.

[LBJer]

It forgot to mention the mass murder of animals.

How exactly does one "murder" an animal?

By killing them?

Murder is the killing of a human being.

The word "murder" is used in two basic ways.  One is as a legal term, and the other is as a personal moral judgment.  You are using the first definition, and according to that one you are correct.  However, the second definition of murder is much more subjective, and using that one, a person might well view the killing of animals for reasons s/he considers unjust to be murder.  

Aren't you the guy that said hunting was the greatest moral failure of noted philanderer and killer of Vietnamese children Lyndon Johnson?

By your logic, should FDR be labeled a "killer of German and Japanese children"? 

I agree that unlike Vietnam, WWII was a just war, but even when a war is unjust, unintentional deaths of civilians are not generally considered murder, even if they are by some. 

And yes, it is at the very least quite reasonable to view hunting more negatively than having consensual sex with someone other than one's spouse.  Get real. 

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

And yes, it is at the very least quite reasonable to view hunting more negatively than having consensual sex with someone other than one's spouse.  Get real. 

It is a defensible position but it should not surprise you that it violates most people's moral intuitions and thus provokes skeptical or befuddled reactions.

As for the thread question, I agree entirely with Antonio, although I wouldn't throw around the word "progress" in this context in quite the same way that he does.

[LBJer]

And yes, it is at the very least quite reasonable to view hunting more negatively than having consensual sex with someone other than one's spouse.  Get real. 

It is a defensible position but it should not surprise you that it violates most people's moral intuitions and thus provokes skeptical or befuddled reactions.

First of all, where's your evidence for that assertion?  Secondly, if it indeed does, that means that "most people's moral intuitions" are seriously questionable.  "Most people's moral intuitions" used to say that homosexuality and interracial marriage were wrong.