Charitably, I assume they are unfamiliar with the road and don’t know any better than to get in the right hand lane. But if they are regulars and sit in the right, instead of moving over to the “straight only” lane, i think they are rude.
It depends. Maybe they’re turning right at the next intersection, and are used to heavy traffic and don’t know whether they’d be able to easily get back over. Maybe they’re unfamiliar with the road. Maybe the vehicle behind them didn’t bother to turn its turn signal on, or didn’t do so till the last minute, so that Bob thinks, or thought when pulling up to the light in that lane, that they’re also going straight. Maybe Bob is horribly distracted by just having learned that someone close to them has died, and is just trying as hard as they can to get home before they fall apart.
Maybe Bob is being an ass. And I might indeed feel a bit grumbly if stuck behind them. But I’m not going to lean on the horn about it.
I have only used ChatGPT a few times out of curiousity, but I have used Gemini to generate computer code for my work. It works well.
I don’t have a lot of opinion about Discobot. But I sometimes find people’s hatred a bit amusing.
Right turn on red is not legal in Switzerland. So I might think Bob isn’t aware that being in the left lane would be the polite thing to do.
Other.
I feel vehemently that it’s worse to eat dogs and cats than to eat, say, pigs. I cannot however come up with a logical defense for that belief. Which doesn’t stop me from believing it.
A tiny piece of the animals humanely slaughtered for meat is missing. It presumes the end of all the animals is equal, but is silent on the upbringing.
If I humanely slaughter an animal raised as a pet then yes, I feel differently about the outcome. The same would apply for a pig that had been raised as a human companion rather than a meat critter. That’s a betrayal of expectations and conditions.
If all said animals were raised as meat critters in equally humane (or rather, inhumane more likely) conditions, I wouldn’t object, but I also due to emotional attachment (having owned cats and dogs) would not purchase from them. I wouldn’t consider it more morally “wrong” though than any one else choosing to eat meat.
Yeah. I can get that far with logic: you don’t slaughter and eat pets unless the alternative is starving to death (and in that situation you probably can’t feed the pets, either.)
The problem with the inside of my head is that my mind insists it’s also terrible to raise dogs and especially cats for meat. That insistence is not logically based; but it’s there anyway.
ETA: if it’s normal in an entire culture to do that (and I gather that it is in some, though I don’t think Haiti is actually such a culture), I have no problem with any part of my mind in saying that this doesn’t make them horrible people. But most of me still thinks they’re doing a horrible thing.
I voted it’s worse, but mostly i think it’s worse to steal and eat pets than to slaughter animals you have raised for meat. And the “stealing” isn’t really covered by the poll, but it’s definitely part of my issue.
Also, it depends on the animal. I’ve mostly stopped eating pork due to concerns about them being too smart to be meat animals. (And also the horrible conditions of factory farms.) On the other hand, I’ve met chickens, and can’t think of a nobler end they could aspire to than being eaten by a human being. I prefer to avoid factory farms for chickens, too, but it doesn’t bother me nearly as much. Because they are just chickens.
And given the opportunity, you know the little velociraptors would eat you right back!
Seriously though, if we’re talking about the cute/attractive factors of the animals, we’re talking about Denis Leary’s animal auditions bit [ very NSFW language], which is far too true.
And you don’t want to have the racial flaw of being delicious [also in the bit above].
I mean, I find ducks unspeakably cute compared to chickens, but if I could buy duck at the same price chicken… hoo boy.
ETA - For the record, I know plenty of people both IRL and on the board who can and do make the moral choice about meat eating without the concerns of the cuteness of the animals (for example, see Puzzlegal above on the intellect of pigs!). I’m making an exaggerated point though that for many, it IS tied to our cultural assumptions of what is and is not a pet animal, cuteness, and projection. I am perfectly aware that as someone who owns pets, generally wants a greener world (brand new PHEV owner) but a meat eater, I have some noticeable hypocrisy myself. 
I voted that it’s worse to eat cats and dogs. In our society we have an unwritten “inter-species contract” with cats and dogs, where we provide for them and they give us love and companionship… and sometimes frustration and heartbreak. Breaking that contract and killing them for fun or for cruelty or even with complete indifference (with or without eating them) feels like treachery.
And it also isn’t happening. (That is, there may be a couple of people somewhere in the world doing this, but it’s neither general behavior for people recently from Haiti nor running rampant in Springfield.) So I didn’t answer with that in mind at all.
Yeah, that’s part of why I used pigs in my example instead of some other species.
On the one hand, I know people with pet chickens who say they’re very much individuals with their own minds and affections.
On the other hand, I once heard someone say that, when asked how they could stand to eat the chickens they’d raised, their answer was “If you knew these chickens like we know these chickens, you’d know how we can stand to eat these chickens!”
– I try to avoid factory farms for all species, though I can’t claim to be perfect at it.
Killing anything that’s alive, even insects, for fun or for cruelty strikes me as just plain nasty and I want to stay the hell away from such people. (Possible exception for small children who may not understand what they’re doing yet.) Sometimes there’s good reason to kill something; but fun and/or cruelty is never a good reason.
Yeah, i was eating on a table outdoors (a large porch) and the guy across from me started humming “
dead ant, dead ant ” and i gently swept the ant off the table. I think he was disappointed. But so was i, i was sad that he looked forward to crushing it.
It once caught my attention, in a discussion of family relatives, that there are carpenter aunts, leaf-cutter aunts, fire aunts and army aunts…
Huh, how did the leaf cutter aunt earn that name?
I’m a fire aunt, myself.
They cut up leaves and use the pieces to grow fungus gardens, which they feed to their nieces and nephews.
Same here.
There are cattle that are raised in feed lots, and cattle that are basically pets. Similarly for horses.
As long as someone is willing to eat meat, then raising cats and dogs as foodstock should be the same as raising cattle, horses, pigs, etc. as foodstock.
Theoretically.
Interestingly, Wikipedia says that in Switzerland, cats eaten for food are sometimes known as “roof rabbits”.
Link to Wikipedia article (blurred for sensitivity): Cat meat
So @colinfred’s political leader poll.
First, and fighting the hypothetical, the person described (violent, criminal grifter) is trusted by you to enact the superior policies (as determined by you). Nothing in the description gives any reason for that - while everything else points that you couldn’t trust the weasel at all, but hey, whatever. You think they’d stay bought. 
But even ignoring that, no, I won’t vote for them. Because if you vote in a violent, criminal grifter for certain policies, you also normalize it. So the next criminal psycho who talks a good game gets a position of untrammeled power, zero accountability, but this time you don’t have a magical genie to make him put these great policies in place.
And the alternate, an actually good person, isn’t advising disastrous policies, just ones that are less amazing. So yeah, I want a non-crazy, trustworthy candidate in position who isn’t/shouldn’t be turning us into a kleptocracy ruled by the most violent above the laws sorts. Especially since (even if it isn’t out 2024 election theoretically) our SC(R)OTUS has decided they alone can decide if a president is crimin’ enough to prosecute.
Really folks, is it hard to vote for the lesser of evils? Some people find it so (see the legitimately pit-directed Pope threads) because they’re blinded by a specific policy they want enacted/denied, but it’s rarely as obvious as this particular poll (or real life).
The closest this has ever happened to me is when Bill Clinton ran for his second term. I believed there were credible allegations that he was a rapist. But i liked his policies.
I was in NY. My vote wasn’t going to matter. I voted for a third party and hoped Clinton would win.