|
|
|
|
|
by sweenycod
1668 days ago
|
|
The argument was directly related to the original claim of "genocide" and had nothing to do with the consumption of animals in general. I was saying that by consuming one turkey per year I am hardly contributing to the extinction of an animal. Dogs are consumed in other countries such as Nigeria and the practice is only taboo in primarily western cultures. This has historical and cultural implications. Like I said, just because you consider something "icky" doesn't make it immoral (see https://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/09/moral-emotions-yuk-fac...). If you are truly interested in philosophical conversations I would avoid phrases like "you don't see what's wrong with this?", because appealing to the stone (argumentum ad lapidem) is not an actual argument. It's a shell for lack of reasoning and evidence (also known as a logical fallacy). If you see some breakdown of logic then please, point it out using reasoning. You may think it is immoral to consume dogs. Other countries do not. There is no "obviously immoral" conclusion to what you said. Or perhaps I missed it. |
|
As for the breakdown in logic, you said this in your first comment:
'Your appeal to emotion using (incorrect) words like "genocide" and "needless slaughter" suggest a strong ideology and lack of objectivity [...]'.
Unless I'm reading that wrongly, you're saying that "needless slaughter" is 'incorrect', and I'm curious to know why that is, as to me this is a completely correct statement.