Also, nice try with the straw man fallacy again! You’re really focused on including babies and dogs to invalidate my argument, when I never brought those up myself in the first place. Sure, I addressed them on my subsequent replies after you started with it.
We choose which meats or animals to eat. Just because our bodies can digest certain things doesn’t mean we should engage in unethical behavior. It’s called having self-control and moral principles, a detail you seem be consistently ignoring.
“I’m not normalizing eating babies,’ proceeds to normalize eating babies”
Will you stop, for a fucking second, with straw man bullshit? Or you won’t, because that’s your only bullshit resource? Tell me where, in this following fucking phrase did I use the word babies? I repeat: you are the who brought them up in the first place. If you’re projecting on me your repressed thoughts of eating or fucking babies, that ain’t my fault.
“Besides, while I don’t share their views, there are cultures where eating dogs or practicing cannibalism is common.”
Cannibalism doesn’t implicate eating babies, that’s on you. Also, acknowledging the existence of a practice doesn’t mean to normalize it.
Let’s take out of the equation your fallacies for a moment: Beef, pork and chicken are part of my diet, because my body can digest and sustain on them. Why shouldn’t I eat those?
Go back to school. Arguments lead to logical conclusions. Your point is stupid. You are worried about framing in discourse far more than the argument. Just use that brain power of yours to reformat the argument minus the framing you don’t like. Such as, ‘if anything digestible is morally permissable to digest, that would include babies, which you probably wouldn’t morally permit, so perhaps you should find a more useful argument. Babies have meat too.’ There, that better? You shouldn’t eat animals (or 99.9999999% of them) because they are conscious - entailing varying degrees of thoughts, feelings, social dynamics, and the obvious capacity to suffer - many animals of which exhibit higher degrees of consciousness than a newborn human.
And jfc my dude you responded to the idea of babies being eaten with ‘besides, some people are cannibals.’ I didn’t strawman. You actually said that.
If you still can’t figure out how ‘my body can digest stuff so its a-okay to eat literally anything digestible’ is incredibly dumb even after I’ve told you where that logic leads then just don’t participate in discourse at all and we’ll help you get through life since you can’t do it on your own. Are you done with the intellectualy dishonest semantics or no?
This is an ad hominem fallacy:
Oh, an this too:
Also, nice try with the straw man fallacy again! You’re really focused on including babies and dogs to invalidate my argument, when I never brought those up myself in the first place. Sure, I addressed them on my subsequent replies after you started with it.
We choose which meats or animals to eat. Just because our bodies can digest certain things doesn’t mean we should engage in unethical behavior. It’s called having self-control and moral principles, a detail you seem be consistently ignoring.
Will you stop, for a fucking second, with straw man bullshit? Or you won’t, because that’s your only bullshit resource? Tell me where, in this following fucking phrase did I use the word babies? I repeat: you are the who brought them up in the first place. If you’re projecting on me your repressed thoughts of eating or fucking babies, that ain’t my fault.
Cannibalism doesn’t implicate eating babies, that’s on you. Also, acknowledging the existence of a practice doesn’t mean to normalize it.
Let’s take out of the equation your fallacies for a moment: Beef, pork and chicken are part of my diet, because my body can digest and sustain on them. Why shouldn’t I eat those?
Go back to school. Arguments lead to logical conclusions. Your point is stupid. You are worried about framing in discourse far more than the argument. Just use that brain power of yours to reformat the argument minus the framing you don’t like. Such as, ‘if anything digestible is morally permissable to digest, that would include babies, which you probably wouldn’t morally permit, so perhaps you should find a more useful argument. Babies have meat too.’ There, that better? You shouldn’t eat animals (or 99.9999999% of them) because they are conscious - entailing varying degrees of thoughts, feelings, social dynamics, and the obvious capacity to suffer - many animals of which exhibit higher degrees of consciousness than a newborn human.
And jfc my dude you responded to the idea of babies being eaten with ‘besides, some people are cannibals.’ I didn’t strawman. You actually said that.
If you still can’t figure out how ‘my body can digest stuff so its a-okay to eat literally anything digestible’ is incredibly dumb even after I’ve told you where that logic leads then just don’t participate in discourse at all and we’ll help you get through life since you can’t do it on your own. Are you done with the intellectualy dishonest semantics or no?