If you had not plugged your metaphorical ears and doubled down on an ad hominem, you would have seen that some of those receipts are self-reported filings from PETA themselves to the government.
I would link the definition of “ad hominem” for you, but let’s be real: you’re not going to read that either.
My friend, did you not see that they are employing “The Socratic Method”? Whoever calls Socratic method first wins, those are the rules, just like calling “shotgun” to claim the front car seat.
I’ve recently learned the /s sarcasm tag is a reddit thing. What’s the term for this though and is it allowed on Lemmy? “BrO, I aM uSiNg ThE sOcRaTic MeThOd. AnSwEr My QuEsTiOn, bRo.” It is a lot more tedious to type.
Edit: in all seriousness, this thread sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole about the misuse of the socratic method. I landed on the page linked below from the University of Chicago on how they employ a modern version of the method, it articulated some of the issues I have with “AnSwEr mY QueSTiOn, bRO” bros. Key passages:
The Socratic Method is not used at UChicago to intimidate, nor to “break down” new law students, but instead for the very reason Socrates developed it: to develop critical thinking skills in students and enable them to approach the law as intellectuals.
And emphasis is mine;
The day of the relentless Socratic professor who ended every sentence with a question mark is over. University of Chicago professors who rely on the Socratic Method today use participatory learning and discussions with a few students on whom they call (in some classrooms, randomly) to explore very difficult legal concepts and principles. The effort is a cooperative one in which the teacher and students work to understand an issue more completely.
It’s an ad hominem to assert that I hold an unethical belief and then use said assertion to bolster your point.
I said PETA are psychopaths for needlessly killing animals, yet you assume that I’m not equally against killing animals for personal pleasure and consumerism.
No offense intended to vegetarians, but it’s a half measure if they’re doing it for ethical or climate reasons.
I genuinely do not care about that website; all that matters is their receipts. I care that PETA are hypocrites who needlessly kill living creatures while preaching about the ethics or lack thereof of needlessly killing living creatures.
If you had not plugged your metaphorical ears and doubled down on an ad hominem, you would have seen that some of those receipts are self-reported filings from PETA themselves to the government.
I would link the definition of “ad hominem” for you, but let’s be real: you’re not going to read that either.
My friend, did you not see that they are employing “The Socratic Method”? Whoever calls Socratic method first wins, those are the rules, just like calling “shotgun” to claim the front car seat.
I’ve recently learned the /s sarcasm tag is a reddit thing. What’s the term for this though and is it allowed on Lemmy? “BrO, I aM uSiNg ThE sOcRaTic MeThOd. AnSwEr My QuEsTiOn, bRo.” It is a lot more tedious to type.
Edit: in all seriousness, this thread sent me down a bit of a rabbit hole about the misuse of the socratic method. I landed on the page linked below from the University of Chicago on how they employ a modern version of the method, it articulated some of the issues I have with “AnSwEr mY QueSTiOn, bRO” bros. Key passages:
And emphasis is mine;
https://www.law.uchicago.edu/socratic-method
It is an ad hominem to point out that like PETA, you are responsible for the death of animals?
It’s an ad hominem to assert that I hold an unethical belief and then use said assertion to bolster your point.
I said PETA are psychopaths for needlessly killing animals, yet you assume that I’m not equally against killing animals for personal pleasure and consumerism.
Do you eat animals?
If so, that means you give money to animal murderers and that animals die for your benefit.
I apologize if you are vegetarian or vegan, but if so, when did you begin defending animal AG propaganda websites from being questioned?
No offense intended to vegetarians, but it’s a half measure if they’re doing it for ethical or climate reasons.
I genuinely do not care about that website; all that matters is their receipts. I care that PETA are hypocrites who needlessly kill living creatures while preaching about the ethics or lack thereof of needlessly killing living creatures.
Killing for sensory pleasure isn’t needless in your book?
Surely euthanasia is less needless than your personal reasons for involvement in animal murder, wouldn’t you say?