Ok Im gonna do a Phenomenology club on this so if u all would be so kind , i have some more questions...

This is for those who said it is WORSE to kill an animal for a film than to eat it...

According to you..is killing an animal for a film ok if you eat it TOO?

Fascinating. So.. for those who say yes now again - according to you, as long as the animal dies to be EATEN and not simply FILMED all is well.

Is this because you believe eating food is necessary for survival and because film is not?

Following from that premise...

Clearly every individual time we eat meat is not necessary for our survival. Would you agree then that much of our meat consumption is superfluous?

Do you like films?

Do you think film serves a functional purpose or is it superfluous?

Which do you value more?

According to you, does onscreen violence ever serve a functional purpose you feel supportive of? (ie horror, war, sexual violence, etc.)

If you were a non-human animal & your execution was imminent, which do you think you would choose if you were given the option?

Do you think dying on film is implicitly degrading?

If you were publically executed, would you rather it be filmed or not filmed, if u were given the option w no added context.

Do you feel photos and videos taken of any subject require consent?

Is film entertainment?

Is entertainment superfluous?

Does entertainment serve a functional purpose?

Is thinking entertaining?

Do you think/ know that an experience of war could be entertaining

Puffy or crunchy cheetos

Thank you. My work here is done