There’s social persuation going on against people who don’t eat sandwitches - Some are saying “They don’t eat sandwitches because they’ve never eaten the right one”, Other are insisting that “They need to force fed”, Cultists are forcing that “Refusing to eat sandwitches is a disorder/disease”. Wide acceptance is lacking that there can be people who are beyond sandwitches.

Heuristics is a good device but it doesn’t work with lookism. For example - Baldness isn’t a conclusive evidence for a person to be considered unsafe or ill natured. We can’t determine everyone’s nature by just their looks. “Looks can be deceiving” is a good phrase.

If that is so then they are quite successful. Dems supporters are busy on green pond and WH Ufc while core problems like war, genocide, oligarchy, ICE, Epstein files have taken a backseat.

Yes, beauty standard is historically pretty high in the case of women. The whole women beauty industry make profit off of manufacturing insecurities about their appearance. Worse happen when Aesthetics becomes priority over Health. News related to ozempic (weight loss drug) death has become a common occurrence in the recent years.

Thanks for replying and it provides proper answer to my first question. But I would like to know your opinion on the 2’nd question, “Is negativity of lookism causing people to incline towards lookmaxxing?” (to aquire pretty privileges)

The problem with lookism is that it takes someone’s appearance as face value and judges based on it which is just prejudice. There’s more to a person than its appearance. Why would someone be mocked for its hair-loss, baldness or facial features?

Poor treatment of attractive sex worker compared to unattractive oligarch is not based on appearance. Your example doesn’t help solve the problem of lookism.

Killing is a bigger crime than non-consensual sex because killing eradicates said animal from gene-pool and ends its potential progeny/generation. We try to justify killing of innocent animals because we are beneficiaries of that injustice. Benefits is corrupting our sense of morality. As for Zoophilia, it’s non-censensual sex, less harmful than killing. Killing is also considered a bigger crime (than rape) in jurisdiction of humans.

• Clarifying; “Animals can’t consent thus any sexual activity becomes rape” is related to Animal-Human copulation. As zoophilia was mentioned in previous sentence.

From animals’ perspective, Non-consensual killing is worst than Non-consensual sex (Rape). Their similarities lies in the negation of consent by the humans and both actions are unjust. Humans are just giving out disingenuous arguments to hide their crime of killing innocent animals because they benefit from such injustices.

In assisted suicide, people consent to die a dignified death on paper and after government’s approval further medical procedures are performed by the professionals. I don’t see any problem here. Similarly I would have no problem with humans killing animals if animals start consenting to be killed. That’s not the case. Whole social acceptance of killing of innocent animals and condemnation of rape feels like a show were Murderers are pointing out fingers at the rapists with the sense of moral superiority.

• Interspecific sex is a common occurrence within nature and this behavior is also present in humans (zoophilia). As animals can’t consent. So any sexual activity becomes a Rape.

Again the point was similarities in non-consensual killing and raping. Don’t you think that killing and raping are both great injustices against innocent animals? If we think killing is ok then Raping also becomes ok as it’s a smaller crime than killing.

Consent is the core concept which makes assisted suicide different from murder. So, consent is eligible in both sexual manner and matter of existence. We didn’t ask for animals’ consent before raping or killing them.

The question is on social acceptance of killing innocent animals while condemning zoophila. How come murder of innocent accepted but rape is considered a sin? Should we not come to an ideal conclusion and stop both?

• We are gaining the meat by killing innocent animals.
• We are gaining pleasure by raping innocent animals.

How are you not able to see the similar patterns within these systemic injustices against innocents?

If Killing is considered right then Raping should be right because both persons are getting away with doing wrong to “innocent victims”. Here, Killer should not be judgmental of Rapist’s actions because Killing is a far bigger crime.

So Killing animal without their permission is right. But Sex with animal without their permission is wrong. It isn’t consistent. It feels like we are just giving justifications for far worse crime because we have benefits associated with it.

You are saying that humans killing animal for their benefits is right. Then you should also appreciate humans having sex with other animals. Because in both cases we are neglecting the Animal’s consent in its entirely. As we are far more intelligent and strong, we should do whatever we please (Killing or Raping) with other animals. It’s logically consistent.

From Animal’s perspective, They are either getting Murdered or Raped without consenting for either. It would not be fair for the victim if we give verdict based on criminal’s perspective.

Why such opposite reaction? X commited murder for its benefit and Y commited rape for its benefit. Both have dismissed the “consent of animals” for their respective benefits. You can either condone both or condemn both.

Wise choice, Mr. Schopenhauer.