• abraxas
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Bingo, heartstrings of an unsubstantiated argument. Thank you for quoting him.

    is a statement looking at contradictions

    No, it’s a statement accusing contradictions without substantiating them. It’s no different than if I said “we don’t eat cats and dogs, so why is it ok to eat other things in nature like tomatoes?” Except that is OBVIOUSLY the nonsense to who anyone who wants to not die of starvation where his statement merely secretly is. Creating a special category/line of “the animal kingdom” in a flippant unfounded way creates a false likeness between cats&dogs and pork. Add lobsters and other insect-like animals, then add insects, then add bacteria, and then plants. Every one of those steps can be justified if no additional argument is provided. It’s all about making someone feel bad for a poor cute fluffy puppy, even if not intended that way. There is a difference between emotions and ethics.

    I don’t see much point in continuing this conversation if we’re going to be arguing over semantics/sentence meaning here

    With all due respect, that’s on you. I’m not sure if you followed me from our other discussions or simply found my calling the bad argument what it was. I have very strong opinoins about people, especially zealots, trying to push their pseudoreligious views on others using bad-but-convincing arguments. It’s my thing. It’s not everyone’s thing, especially if they personally support the belief that’s being defended badly.

    (I think lemmy.ml is having some issues again)

    Probably yes :(. Lemmy.ml was not prepared. But it’s home.