No it’s not. It being a “gotcha” does not mean it’s wrong. In fact, it is still right, you’re just wrong and think the person you reply to is wrong because they disagree with you.
Hahaha just answer the question. You’re like that meme that goes “APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, STRAWMAN FALLACY” in the middle of a normal conversation. Likr, if you’re in a debate and someone pushes your argument into a corner, you can’t go “no, judged the opposing team is using gotcha arguments that make mine look foolish, I object”.
Hey it’s only a trap if your argument falls for it. When have I lied? Stop arguing weird imagined semantics and actually reply like a human. Why do you think it’s okay to kill and consume sentient life?
The question “would you eat dog meat?” and your outrage at the question, while a gotcha, is a very solid way to point out your inconsistency. It’s by no means dishonest because it outlines your inconsistency without false pretense. You’re being asked a direct question, and you got got.
You don’t get a free get-out-of-jail card because you don’t like how this rhetorical device proved your position weak.
sophistry is shitty. they had no interest in a genuine discussion or learning anything: they’re just trying to show how right they are, regardless of the facts
The facts are there: the consumption of animal products the way it is done across the vast majority of the planet is not something you can rationalize: it’s bad for the consumers, bad for the environnement and, most of all, bad for the animals that are being slaughtered on a massive scale.
Don’t fool yourself: I’m not talking about the act of ingesting the flesh of dead animals, which could theoretically be done in a way that doesn’t have such a strong negative impact on everyone involved. I’m talking about what’s happening in the real world, which is very far from idealized “what if” theories that is pretty unattainable, and an artificial debate construction carnivores use in debates with vegans.
You and I consume animal products. The difference between the two of us is I find the moral objections to the consumption of dog meat to be rationally indefensible, and pretty ridiculous.
Do consume animal products if you like. I’m not a vegan, and I would be hypocritical to judge you based on that. Whatever you do though, just don’t make the mistake of assuming your moral system is universal because it’s pretty illogical.
No it’s not. It being a “gotcha” does not mean it’s wrong. In fact, it is still right, you’re just wrong and think the person you reply to is wrong because they disagree with you.
and now you admit it’s a gotcha. you are engaging in bad faith
Removed by mod
i mean gotchas are bad faith. they are loaded questions.
Hahaha just answer the question. You’re like that meme that goes “APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, STRAWMAN FALLACY” in the middle of a normal conversation. Likr, if you’re in a debate and someone pushes your argument into a corner, you can’t go “no, judged the opposing team is using gotcha arguments that make mine look foolish, I object”.
Gotcha!
I’m just trying to keep the conversation honest and point out rhetorical traps laid by dishonest interlocutors
Hey it’s only a trap if your argument falls for it. When have I lied? Stop arguing weird imagined semantics and actually reply like a human. Why do you think it’s okay to kill and consume sentient life?
don’t be petulant. I have no interest in answering yourbad faith questions.
if you have a claim, make it.
What is your defense of a meat eaters diet in western civilization in 2024.
Hahahaha for the love of god, just actually answer a question for once.
The question “would you eat dog meat?” and your outrage at the question, while a gotcha, is a very solid way to point out your inconsistency. It’s by no means dishonest because it outlines your inconsistency without false pretense. You’re being asked a direct question, and you got got.
You don’t get a free get-out-of-jail card because you don’t like how this rhetorical device proved your position weak.
sophistry is shitty. they had no interest in a genuine discussion or learning anything: they’re just trying to show how right they are, regardless of the facts
The facts are there: the consumption of animal products the way it is done across the vast majority of the planet is not something you can rationalize: it’s bad for the consumers, bad for the environnement and, most of all, bad for the animals that are being slaughtered on a massive scale.
Don’t fool yourself: I’m not talking about the act of ingesting the flesh of dead animals, which could theoretically be done in a way that doesn’t have such a strong negative impact on everyone involved. I’m talking about what’s happening in the real world, which is very far from idealized “what if” theories that is pretty unattainable, and an artificial debate construction carnivores use in debates with vegans.
You and I consume animal products. The difference between the two of us is I find the moral objections to the consumption of dog meat to be rationally indefensible, and pretty ridiculous.
Do consume animal products if you like. I’m not a vegan, and I would be hypocritical to judge you based on that. Whatever you do though, just don’t make the mistake of assuming your moral system is universal because it’s pretty illogical.
In short, get off that high horse.
where did I express any opinion about the consumption of dog meat? my objection is entirely to the bad faith sophistry on display here.
I think I’ve made my case here, everything I could respond to that is visible in the exchange we’ve had. Good night!