WHAT IN THE <| sep |> Are you doing it via the client or the web browser ? <| sep |> Specialty reporter ? Like for sports or something ? <| sep |> That ' s not a fingernail <| sep |> How is it that Amazon can give their customers an estimated arrival date of Dec 6 th before Oculus does ? The first dates were a 9 day windowestimate . Also they got release date delivery meaning they know they ' ll have stock ahead of time or it ' s stocking right now , Oculus can ' t possibly not know that info so why aren ' t they sharing it already . <| sep |> Look at me ! I ' m dabbing like my fellow youths ! <| sep |> Wings are working ok lately . <| sep |> It ' s no longer unintentional . If you now know we kill animals by harvesting vegetables you are making the choice that eating vegetables is more important than not killing those animals . That ' s just burying your head in the sand like most accuse meat eaters of doing . Your first argument is definitely valid , but I think it ' s still subjective . The argument seems to be well either way we must kill things to live , so we may as well kill fewer , but that just seems like the trolley problem , especially if you ' re still considering humans and animals as equivalent . You still are choosing to kill something in order to save more of something else . For me , the facts of nature come down to you must kill to survive . This extends to everything . To get to your job you run over animals on the road . To get energy you kill animals windmills killing birds , oil spills killing everything , etc . If animals must die to support human life , I find that moral , but if you don ' t find it to be true you must come to turns that humanity is innately immoral .