CA is a big market, so harder to write off; Rhode Island is easy to write off.
There are certainly differing opinions on what constitutes animal cruelty and is moral or immoral [e.g., killing and eating them]. So what is "right" is not so clear cut.
There are certainly differing opinions on what constitutes animal cruelty and is moral or immoral [e.g., killing and eating them]. So what is "right" is not so clear cut.
What does this kind of argument say about the morality slavery in 1860? Opinions were strongly divided, therefore was it not so clear cut?
Case in point: Most everyone is opposed to people owning people, but very few are opposed to people owning other animals.
Can you give me a test that will definitely say if a being is sentient or not that doesn't basically boil down to "is this being a human or not?"
> Case in point: Most everyone is opposed to people owning people, but very few are opposed to people owning other animals.
There have been cultures where "very few people" were opposed to human sacrifice. This is meaningless as an argument.