There's a lot more in that source as well
Some of them, if you stun them they just look at you and cry… when it cries and then it gives me another thing, of eish (shivering). I like animals and now I am killing the animals. The first week before I started to stun, hey, it was difficult for me
Sometimes I saw myself slaughtering the animals, but you see eyes, I saw, eyes of the animal. It's like its watching me. That thing, that dream, I didn't feel well even when I came back to work, but I keep on checking the eyes to see its watching me, because I saw it in the dream. It's not easy for a first time
In my dream I see the bleeding line, just the cattle hanging on the line, all whose heads are off. I get this picture often. It's not nice to dream about blood; you wake up wet with sweat
And so on
No animal was designed to be killed and eaten.
Interesting take. How do you figure that?
I'll go a step further and say that no animal was "designed".
Dogs were designed. But you can use a colloquialism and anthropomorphise evolution while still being comprehensible to others, and if you do that, well every animal was designed to survive and reproduce, and to do things in aid of that. And no animal was designed to be food for something else, though many plants were.
You shouldn't depend on using two definitions for one word in the same argument if you want to be taken seriously.
In your first use of "design", you mean that deliberate effort was made to eugenically breed dogs to exhibit certain traits. That's accurate.
In your original comment and your second use of "design" here, you mean "evolved" but inaccurately used the word "design" when you self-reportedly meant "evolved", so I'm going to use the appropriate word "evolved" here instead.
Anthropomorphizing evolution doesn't make evolution a simpler concept than evolution itself.
How do you mean that plants evolved to become food for something else?
Plants were around hundreds of millions of years before any animals showed up. Do you mean fungi?
They weren't the same argument. They were two different arguments. That's why I used the word "but" in the middle of the two, which is a word that has traditionally connoted a difference between two statements.
Nice try, but you're consistently using the same word to mean two radically different concepts so that you can hop between definitions.
"Let's pretend pink means red and purple. Now, shirt number one is red and shirt number two is purple. They're both pink, right?"
Inaccurately and for your personal definitions, yes. Both shirts are pink.
Accurately, no, one shirt is red and one shirt is purple.
If you have a point you want to make, make it accurately.
It's okay if you used the wrong word the first time, say what you actually meant and move forward
No, I met you on your own terms for one sentence before switching back to my terms and explaining why.
No, you inaccurately described evolution as design and then after admitting you meant evolution and definitively not design, rather than continuing the conversation and answering my questions, you are insisting on dithering that incorrect definitions are as valid as correct ones.
They are not.
You can keep trying to catch me though.
It's fun, and it doesn't seem like you have any compelling arguments about plants or animals not evolving to be eaten anyway.
Do you think predators eat grass?
Are you assuming the predator and prey were designed for a unified purpose?
praying mantis
Good point. No vertebrate was designed to be killed and eaten