| > If we turned down every complaint just because it wasn’t deemed as harmful as another complaint that was turned down, few things would change. Or, maybe we'd think differently about some things that have been normalised and are worthy of re-consideration. Regarding "few things would change", like all these things, that can be good or bad, it depends on the situation. > the logical fallacy you’ve stumbled upon is termed as “whataboutism”. I think they're comparable in this context: "can be used legally, can be used illegally, the freedom of choice is given to the user". I'm specifically not comparing "why is this an issue whilst animals are still being experimented on by companies that make beauty products". I'm explicitly trying to avoid whataboutism, to provide some logical comparison. As pasquinelli points out in a sibling comment, the fallacy I did make is that of pointing out hypocrisy and expecting that to be worth anything. Sadly, that's a true fallacy at this point in civilisation. Unfortunately, I'll keep banging my head on that wall until either I'm dead or the wall relents. |