LuckyR

Still not clear what exactly you're driving at. Having a seizure episode is generally a big deal that makes the diagnosis obvious. If (somehow) someone who hasn't had one was told that they were at risk of a future seizure, since anti-seizure medication has significant downsides, would anyone take it? I'm not a neurologist, but I'm not aware that epilepsy has a reputation as a particularly difficult diagnosis to make. Ultimately, it's unclear to me what "problem" the app would "solve".

Do you mean detect the propensity for seizure activity before the first seizure?

We are in agreement on the relative difference between morals and ethics (though the appreciation of the difference is not universal). Having said that, please go into further detail on the "difference" you're referring to in your first paragraph.

I'm not seeing your examples as refutations of my comment. You're (correctly) bringing up examples of contractictions within belief systems, which underscore flaws in individual's purported ethics. Not dissimilar to the vegan cat owner in my example. Of course, all of the above use rationalizations to smooth over these internal ethical (actually moral, but many use the terms interchangeably) inconsistancies. And I'm not saying that's a bad thing. Just a thing.

Oh, I apologize for being difficult to understand, I wasn't trying to equate murder with eating meat, I was illustrating how ethics, unlike other more quantitative endeavors, focuses more on whether ethical standards are breached (or not), than it does on how much those standards are breached. Of course as a secondary issue once the primary question of one's ethical status is determined, especially when comparing two examples of violations of ethical standards, we can debate whether this or that breach is larger, but that's a lesser concern.

Nice try. I did not say not "relevant", I said "not the focus". For example, if on the scale of murder victims created, the "degree" between killing 10 vs killing 2, is 8, whereas the degree of difference between 1 and zero is only one. However ethically the difference between violating the community ethical standard by murdering one is huge, whereas the difference between violating the ethical standard twice vs 10 times, still puts one in the ethical category of "murderer". I don't dispute that you are free to disagree, though most in the community (whose ethical standard is the measuring stick) agree.

Which totally makes sense in the environment forum, but here in the ethics forum, "degree" isn't the focus. Either you support the industrial ranching industry, or you don't.

You're misunderstanding my point. Folks who aren't vegan don't mind that vegan cat owners are supporting the meat industry. I don't think anyone wanted you to shoot the cats as the alternative to feeding them (bird watchers, however may disagree). No, I brought up the point to illustrate the fact that practicing veganism doesn't necessarily absolve one from the purported "negatives" of the industrial ranching industry.

Interesting, but not what I was driving at. The pet food industry accounts for as much meat volume as the country of Brazil annually. Kudos to you, but the pet food industry as a whole is even more slanted towards factory farming than the human meat industry. BTW your post (reading between the lines) implies you're not a vegetarian and thus not the subject of my inquiry.

Several things. First, it is an error to suppose that the alternative for domesticated animals (by and large) should there no longer be a demand for their commercial value, would be reverting to the wild or living out their days as quasi pets. Rather they would, by and large die out (I'm not saying that's a bad thing, just a fact). Second, others in this thread have contrasted the life quality of domesticated animals with wild animals, which can be done, but is very misleading since domesticated animals aren't just wild animals on farms. They're different species and aren't interchangeable. Lastly, when I earlier referenced non-ethical reasons for meat consumption, you asked for an example of one. Because it tastes great, would be such an example. And I assume none of the vegetarians on this thread own cats, right?

I got that, though I predicted (correctly) that others would use it as a springboard to make the leap that the "vegetarianism is best" argument has therefore been settled ethically. I don't disagree, though there are numerous cogent non-ethical facets that bear consideration.

While there are several true factoids within this post, none of them can stand alone to definitively guide one to choose veganism. That is, there are many other truths surrounding this general topic that warrant consideration.

When you say "lung cytology" are you referring to bronchoscopy washings (from a patient) or samples taken from a cadaver (typically at autopsy)?

Well originally the definition of gods were that they had superhuman powers, it was only when Modern (monotheistic) religions were invented that gods were required to be omnipotent. So your focus on "most powerful" while common currently, was not a requirement back when the concept of gods was invented.

A pretty good demonstration of "what-about-ism". If you want to demonstrate that adding funding doesn't improve quality, I suppose you're prepared to show that cutting funding of Healthcare doesn't erode quality. Since the main expenditure of any Healthcare system is labor costs, having fewer, say nurses, in a hospital doesn't erode quality of care? Or replacing RNs with lower cost Nursing Assistants?