So? This is irrelevant. The question is whether an egg should be “named” after what laid it (ie. A proto chicken egg, which contains a chicken) or if it should be named after what it contains (a chicken egg, laid by a proto chicken).

I see no reason why the default assumption is that it should be named after what it contains. What if the egg was not fertilised and just contains yolk? Should it then be called a yolk egg?

??? You yourself said “even if we are talking about chicken eggs, it is still the egg first” and I was making a point against that.

Not if we are specifically asking about whether the chicken or the chicken egg came first (which is what the original comment in this chain implied), because if proto-chickens lay proto-chicken eggs and a chicken was hatched out of one, then the chicken came before the chicken egg

I don’t think It’s that clear, are eggs named by what created them, or what they contain? I could certainly see an argument that the first chicken hatched from a proto-chicken egg

I suspect they might be referring to the thing they replied to, the sentiment “I love murder”

I just want to point out that something being “natural” does not inherently make it ok. Killing other creatures of the same species (murder) is “natural”, rape is “natural”, stealing is “natural”.

The entire point of ethics/morality is to distinguish between the natural things which we find good, and the natural things we find bad and want ourselves and others to stop doing.

My point being that if you want to defend eating meat as morally ok, you should do so without the “appeal to nature”.