This may not quite be eil5 level, but

You remember old 3d movies with the red and blue images? The way those worked is when you wear the red and blue lens would block one image per eye. So the red lens blocks the blue image, and the blue lens blocks the red image.

This in turn emulates how you actually see in 3d where each eye sees separate images.

Newer 3d movies work on the same principle, but instead of using colors to do it, it actually uses polarities of light. So when you look at the screen without the lenses it looks distorted and blurry because you're seeing 2 images. The glasses block one image per eye depending on the polarity. This allows you to still see all the colors too compared to the red and blue method.

Depending on the all in one, possibly. But in my experience with all in ones it's essentially an entire computer built into a slightly bigger than normal monitor. Like a laptop but no battery, keyboard, or mouse.

Sounds like what you're saying is: You pay for a product, they keep putting resources into it and you get all that content for nothing more than the initial release price. That isn't a balanced system at all.

That'd be like going to a restaurant, paying for one meal, then being mad that the restaurant has the audacity to charge you for every subsequent meal afterward.

A balanced system would be a product that gets continuously paid for, and then continuously developed as well.

Another balanced system is they release a FINISHED product with no plans for extra support aside maybe some bug fixes or something, you pay for that once and you get that product and move on with your day. Dlc is content for a game released after the launch of the game, so an extra charge is up to the developer, think dessert after your meal in the restaurant analogy.

Day one dlc sucks and should not exist. Season passes for non-online games are essentially preorders for dlc content and should also go away.

I'm not saying you don't necessarily have a point, but your point came across really flawed at least.

As for something being a bad game, just don't play it then lol.

Did you see me say anything about the dog being fed a vegetarian diet? No. I was simply giving advice on how you might convince more people to adjust their eating habits in a better way with the added benefit of explaining why your current manner of arguing for it is flawed. That appeal to emotion argument works for some, but not a lot, of people. If that's somehow "evil" then feel free to ignore everything I've said.

As for 16 year olds visiting things like that, i honestly agree. That's around the age where you should be shown some uncomfortable stuff, and allow them to come to their own conclusions for these topics. It may work to help lower meat consumption, it may also do almost nothing at all. I've seen it myself, and while it's not, lets say ideal for the animal, it is efficient and for the amount we eat as a society, that efficiency is kind of required.

If we ate less, I'm not even arguing for none either necessarily, we could significantly lower the need for industrialized animal farming like that. It would have a ton of benefits.

Ah so doubling down on the accusations. Nice. I wouldn't really call it a lack of empathy as much as simple human nature. Do you get heartbroken over someone dying whom you've never met and have no ties to? No? Then you have a lack of empathy by this logic. This is also why the appeal to emotion argument often holds no real weight in my experience.

Notice how i made no comment at all about feeding an animal a vegan diet in my comment? Yeah there is a reason for that lol. I edited it a bit to make it more clear the specific thing i was targeting in my response though.

I find this argument extremely lacking in persuasive power to lead people to more vegetarian diets. It often comes across as aggressive and accusatory, something people tend to get defensive over and thus more "against" you as their interlocutor. It'd be much better instead to focus on the proven environmental and health benefits of eating much less, or even no, meat/animal products.

The emotional "it's animal abuse" argument is totally countered by one simple statement.

"I don't care"

And because it's an appeal to emotion it doesn't actually really matter if it seems inconsistent either with their response to "well would you eat your dog" for which is a common retort to that.

Edited for clarity on what my whole point here actually was.

It also says vegan friendly...