PAA:
1) I assumed “ORIGINAL QUESTION” referred to something significant from any perspective.
2) I made my three posts in a row without reading everything up to that point, so there were actually more than eleven unread posts.
Let’s go!
Maybe the Moderator feels that it is in fact worse to kill animals than to kill insects and allowing the post would have equated the two so he had no choice but to edit it.
Mods aren’t allowed to block things just because they disagree with them.
Also, a careful reading of the post shows that writersoul may actually have killed animals as well: The statement "I've yet to have caused one myself" is referring back to the statement of "I do see a lot of extremely depressing roadkill" so all it means is that writersoul never caused a DEPRESSING roadkill.
Here’s a reasonable assumption – Writersoul finds all
roadkill depressing, and “extremely depressing” was meant to express a feeling about “roadkill,” not to modify (and thus limit) it, whether that is correct usage or not.
If that is the case then the thankfulness is not for not killing animals; it's for not killing them in a depressing way which obviously doesn't apply to insects which are never killed in a depressing way. So chuvim (Joseph)'s question is all the more baseless.
Chuvim’s question assumes (“as bad as”) that Writersoul believes there is something bad about running over a bird or skunk. This appears to be baseless. It is understandable that Writersoul’s feeling about roadkill is that it is depressing, and it can be assumed that she does not feel this way about insects (as demonstrated by your assumption that this non-feeling is universal – “insects which are never killed in a depressing way”).
I thought I answered that already. [What was edited out of Ws’s post]
No, you theorized, and that theory can be presumed false.
(edited)