I love random ass-facts

Define endgame

Max Level? Why not?

Is endgame only raiding? Or PvP? Because those a completely different skill sets that must be learned separate from the rest of the game, so level doesn't matter.

Give one good example as to why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.

Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous deals with hunting down Demons as a crusader imbued with the powers of a god or god-like creature.

Not every relationship is the same.

Not at all.

The story picks up big time the further along you go.

Why did you censor "masterpieces"?

Skyrim

Elder Scrolls Online

Ghost of Tsushima

The moon twists slightly during its orbit. https://youtu.be/7JqVqvIlrwA

That doesn't make any sense, you're just trying to win the argument at this point lol

You present it as "you will eat fewer animals" which is true, and you let people decide for themselves if the ramifications of that is worth it to them and what it means.

What you don't do is present your data with a blatant lie in the title in order to push people's opinions to your own viewpoint

Uh, how so?

"How many fewer animals you eat by eliminating 1 meal a week"

Come on man, this isn't hard.

"Here's how many animals the average person eats over a lifetime "

Done.

Talk about the health benefits, or the lessening impact of climate change. Or just present the information without the implication of saving animals.

It doesn't matter what I prefer, that's not the argument I'm making.

I've said repeatedly, eating less meat is not a bad thing. There's plenty of benefits to it. I've even cut down my own portions.

My problem is with believing you're saving animals by doing so.

That was my argument from the beginning though.

Wanna eat less meat? Fantastic. Just don't fool yourself into thinking you're saving some animals life, cause you're not.

I have no opinion on that.

My point is not being born isn't the same as being saved.

Let's try something more relevant and current.

There are countries where people live in abject poverty, where children starve to death every day.

Should we prevent the people living in those areas from having kids? In order to "save" those kids?

Because, that's literally eugenics.

That's ridiculous.

My argument is over the use of the word saved, nothing is being saved.

Getting an abortion doesn't "save" a kid from a bad life, it just prevents it. Prevention is not "saving". Noone is being rescued. You can't save something that doesn't exist.

No, but I don't consider it as saving a kid either. The kid still doesn't exist either way.

I mean, if you wanna bring humans into the mix, be careful, cause if we're gonna say that not having a kid is better than letting them be born into terrible conditions... that's dangerously close to eugenics.

But that just means they never existed in the first place. How is that any different? It's still one less cow.

I'm not arguing against veganism.

I'm arguing against this data claiming animals will be saved by us not eating them.

They will not. No animals are being saved.

Continuing as we are now, results in more animals being killed.

Eating less meat results in less animals being born.

At no point is an animal saved from the slaughter house. There is no happy ending, only death or non-existence.

Yes a reduction in population, you're not saving any animal.

If everyone stopped eating chicken, they're just going to slaughter the existing chickens as a waste of money, get nothing out of them, and then stop breeding chickens.

No chickens are saved, they either die pointlessly, or never exist.

It's not like someone is sending them to a chicken sanctuary everytime you skip a KFC bucket.

That's not what saving means.

No it's not. The chart says cutting back on meat will save animals.

No. It will either lead to death or non-existence of animals. Neither of which is saving them.