• @commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -31 year ago

    One pretty consistent moral among societies is that needlessly causing harm is considered wrong.

    besides your total lack of specificity about ethical systems or societies in which they exist, your use of “needlessly” is doing a lot of work there. on the one hand it sets up a no-true-scotsman where you can always claim no need is great enough, but it also gives anyone challenging this claim a loophole the size of a walmart to walk through: just claim it’s necessary.

    i don’t think you really understand the claim you made. worse, if you do, that means you’re intentionally using vague language and intellectually dishonest tactics to persuade. this is called sophistry.

    • @Kedly@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      Im kinda done arguing with dumbasses in good faith about whether or not killing an animal is less ethical than not killing one. I’m a meat eater, I find meat delicious, and I ALSO recognise that most of the world isnt in a privileged enough position to NOT eat meat in order to fulfill their dietary needs. None of this takes away from the fact that killing is less ethical than not killiing

      • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        Im kinda done arguing with dumbasses in good faith about whether or not killing an animal is less ethical than not killing one.

        Abso-fucking-lutely based. Sometimes it’s better to just call a dumbass, ‘a dumbass’ than engage with their bullshit sealioning.

      • @commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -21 year ago

        Im kinda done arguing with dumbasses in good faith about whether or not killing an animal is less ethical than not killing one.

        calling your interlocutors names is a great way to indicate you’re done arguing in good faith, but you just came out and said it. too bad you don’t seem capable of defending the claim you’re making.