You changed the proposition from `eating chicken` to `killing chicken`.

As if these propositions aren't directly linked.

Ok, imagine theres a plate of cooked chicken breast next to a plate of grilled human forearm.

Suddenly, you would say, "yes these two pieces of meat are both equally delicious!"

> Suddenly, you would say, "yes these two pieces of meat are both equally delicious!"

What ? I don't put values on things based on how they taste.

That's why I'd pick up the breast chicken. I still think the chicken lives matter as much as human. I am sad we are causing them unnecessary sufferings (most of the time) but I am still going to eat them over a humane forearm (unless I am trapped in the Andes after a plane crash or something).

In a purely ethical world, the correct answer is to eat neither the chicken breast nor the human forearm if you value both lives equally and believe that neither organism should ever been slaughtered and eaten.

I don't live in a purely ethical world.

I insist: I value both lives and yet I eat chicken. Deal with it.