I also think murder is too strong a word to use when it comes to livestock. Murder is really a human concept with legal implications involving premeditation (or not) and various other legal mumbo jumbo.

Killing is what some animals do to one another in the wild, maybe even their own species. Killing animals is something humans do for sport and as a food source.

Obviously they weren’t using the word “murder” in a legal sense but rather in an informal sense. The OP is conveying the idea that they find the killings to be morally wrong.

Each animal is another being. Humans taste like bacon too.

Can we prove that plants and fungi are not beings? They grow, reproduce, move, and communicate.

have you heard of neurons?

Fungi communicate using chemical and/or bioelectric signals underground, seemingly sometimes even understanding what nutritions non-fungus plants need and supplying them with those. How do you know that's so different to our neurons?

I’ll be the first to stop once we discover consciousness and self awareness in mushrooms. Until then, fucking stop with this stupid ass argument.

I was asking a question on a subject that seems interesting in response to you seeming to think neurons were relevant to the topic of fungi not having consciousness, you're the only one being argumentative. I wasn't calling you an evil mushroom murderer or anything, any negativity you read into my comment was imagined on your part. And if you can't handle someone asking a question about an opinion you have then maybe don't share your opinions on a social website?

If someone is willing to lie to try to make their point stronger what else are they lying about?

It's not a 'lie', it's a discrepancy between whether an animal (non-human) life equates a human life. I know you don't think so, but to call it a 'lie' is false.

no, it's a lie about our common definition of murder. I also don't murder a head of lettuce when I kill it.

There is a better term than murder sure, but you're still "killing" a plant or animal therefore ending it's life. People who use the term raise the plant or animal's importance of life to that of a human. Whether you agree or disagree that's entirely up to you.

I disagree with your assertion that "People who use the term raise the plant or animal's importance of life to that of a human." Doing that with wildlife or livestock is a much much larger thing than just extending the right to protection from killing by way of murder laws. Perhaps people say they "raise the plant or animal's importance of life to that of a human" but I haven't seen anyone earnestly make that case.

Instead, I often think people who use that line of argumentation are trying to launder the feelings that listeners have towards murder into concern about their dietary choices at best, at worst they are working a rhetorical script in which they get to condemn those who disagree with them as murderers and therefore "win". In my own history, the people who don't fit that mold are willing to have a more nuanced discussion about what types of killing happen throughout the course of our lives, what makes a killing justified or not, how your stances change in a "survival situation" vs. the industrial killing that happens for most meat production, etc.

How morally bad a murder is depends on how close to human’s mind we’re talking about; i.e. whether we are able to assume that entity has a consciousness similar enough for us to empathise with.

Saying humans have to die of hunger simply because humans cannot torture and then kill beings substantially like them in an industrialised manner is a disingenuous argument, and the reverse side of the same coin is basically cannibalism.

Murdering a mind that is substantially close to human’s (e.g., a dog) has been considered bad or even off-limits in many cultures for quite a while. Murdering human’s mind for whatever inessential purposes has been considered off-limits for longer (probably after we stopped with sacrificial murder). Morality progresses, news at 11.

For the most part, I don't follow your response, but I just want to follow up with a simple disagreement that I've pondered for a bit.

"How morally bad a murder is depends on how close to human’s mind we’re talking about;"

Let's set aside that I don't think animals can be murdered -- My main disagreement with your point is that you don't speak to the mapping between "how morally bad" and "how close to human's mind"; IMO Reality has higher dimensionality and there is no linear ramp between the two. As one example, the morality of killing is weighted more heavily around whether or not I am in "community" -- for lack of a better term -- with the organism and the specifics of the killing rather than mind similarity. Killing spiders when it can be avoided is bad, but killing every last mosquito you get the chance to is good. For the most part, spiders make an area better for people, provided you don't fuck with them too much. Mosquitos always make things worse.

To further illustrate how I disagree with your response, let's consider something topical: Recently some dipshit got convicted for running an online community that bought and sold videos of the torture and killing of monkeys. Whether monkeys, cats, mice, octopi, fish, etc., soliciting the suffering and death of an organism for entertainment is pure evil, and likewise producing and profiting from such entertainment is pure evil. Hell, I still get a little uncomfortable when those cockroaches get bugstomped when watching starship troopers. I'm not saying the complexity of the mind doesn't factor, just that it ain't that simple by a long shot.

You seem to be more offended by the words than the content. That’s the guilt making you defensive.

Can you take the snappy one liners back to Twitter? Or at least try to have them make sense.

Guilt isn't necessary to be annoyed at someone's word choice. The chosen words are presenting an implication that eating animals is morally wrong, and if someone doesn't believe that and eats animals then they are right to be annoyed by the implication that they are acting immorally. No guilt necessary.

> Can you take the snappy one liners back to Twitter? Or at least try to have them make sense.

Or make them snappier two-liners, like you?

> they are right to be annoyed

Annoyed is an emotion. Someone's words triggered that emotion. Annoyance typically comes from someone's boundaries being crossed. One person might say, "Eh, murder/kill, whatever," but for some reason it triggered a deeper response in you. What do you think is behind that? You probably won't reply, but if you're a fan of metacognition, try tracing that emotion back by asking yourself why? every time you think you're done. Annoyance isn't a primary emotion, it is a response to one ore more. You have to be conditioned to be annoyed by words, unlike, say, mosquito bites. What makes you annoyed by it?