268
Inside the Republican effort to force millions of farm animals back into cages (www.vox.com)
submitted 3 years ago by to c/usa@lemmy.ml
80 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 0 points 3 years ago (3 children)

The original point they made talking about how people commonly hold contradictory beliefs regarding dogs and cats compared to other animals is pointing out cultural bias. It is an appeal for logical consistency in ethical beliefs

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 years ago (2 children)

    Actually, their original point was "We don't eat cats and dogs". You seem to be drawing a lot of foundation they did not lay. We cannot presume that foundation, or its solidity, because they are controversial and MIGHT have been rebuttable.

    Ultimately, it was a meme-worthy throw out of one sentence trying to pull at heartstrings. If he intended more or something defensible, he failed to prove it.

    At this point, I'm pretty sure you're a vegan from your replies to me. Even if you were on the right side of ethics by some agreeable system, that doesn't make his original point more than it actually was. You can argue for the right thing with a bad or lacking argument, and you can (and should) be called on that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 years ago* (1 child)

    Look at the words that immediately follow. "We don’t eat cats or dogs, so why is it okay to eat other animals" is a statement looking at contradictions. I don't see much point in continuing this conversation if we're going to be arguing over semantics/sentence meaning here. I don't think anyone gets much out of that. Also because for some reason, replies are not showing up in my inbox so I can't see your responses easily anyway (I think lemmy.ml is having some issues again)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent