If one considers the act immoral, yet said act is legal- then one has no business telling the person that they shouldn’t do said act. It’s not their business regardless of what it is.
Do you really not see the problems with this? This discussion may be about eating meat, but you just made a general statement about when it is and isn’t okay to tell people that what they’re doing is wrong.
This is a literal defense of slavery. I’m not even misinterpreting it or taking it to a logical conclusion like that other comment I left, you are straight up saying that abolitionists are wrong when they tell slave owners that they shouldn’t own slaves if slavery is legal in their region.
Edit: y’all can read through this thread if you like, but we literally got nowhere except for this guy blocking me. Either he cannot understand the problems with his underlying logic, or he is ideologically consistent and thinks that the Holocaust was totally fine because it was legal and it didn’t hurt him.
Yeah… you’re definitely misinterpreting it. And again, like everyone’s else- arguing false equivalency.
This is not at all like defending slavery. This is telling people to butt-out of the dietary decisions that have nothing to do with you.
If you want an argument that IS similar…
What telling others what they should and shouldn’t eat is not u like those that presume it’s their responsibly to tell other who they can and cannot love.
Someone eating cheeseburgers has absolutely no impact on your life and doesn’t hurt you in the least bit. Just like who someone decides to love has no impact on anyone else.
If you don’t like someone’s diet, that’s a YOU problem. And this goes for both sides of the argument. Though I don’t see any meat-eaters whining about this.
Someone eating cheeseburgers has absolutely no impact on your life and doesn’t hurt you in the least bit. Just like who someone decides to love has no impact on anyone else.
You have to understand that the logic you are using here can be used to justify a bunch of awful things. The government banning gay marriage also has absolutely no impact on my life and doesn’t hurt me the least bit, but I can still argue for the rights and wellbeing of people and animals who aren’t like me.
What telling others what they should and shouldn’t eat is not u like those that presume it’s their responsibly to tell other who they can and cannot love.
This is word salad, but I think what you’re getting at is that telling other people what they should and shouldn’t eat is like telling gay people that they shouldn’t be gay. That’s not a similar argument, because being gay doesn’t hurt anything and eating meat does.
Okay, then the logic you’re used here can be used to justify anti-LGBTQ bigotry. Because you are claiming that because of YOUR belief, others who don’t share it, have to change their behavior or they’re morally wrong.
Nope. I’m against meat production because it harms things and we don’t need to do it. Being gay doesn’t harm anything. My underlying logic does not support bigotry. My underlying logic does support things like fighting for LGBT rights and abolitionism.
Someone else eating meat harms you just as much as some else being gay harms fundamentalist Christians- which is, or should be zero.
There is no harm to you if I eat a steak. None.
And like my comparison, it’s just as much your business if someone eats a steak as it would be a fundamentalist Christian’s business who other people love.
There is no reason you have to tell others how they should live their lives if they don’t ask you for your opinion.
Lastly, I didn’t say eating animals is similar to bigotry. That would be an easily extinguished straw man. It’s not the purpose, it’s the justification of telling others what to do based on YOUR belief.
So no… Your logic doesn’t support bigotry. But it does support oppression. And righteous oppression is your commonality with bigots.
I’ve already gone over this with you. Someone eating meat doesn’t harm me just like my government banning gay marriage doesn’t harm me just like my government legalizing slavery doesn’t harm me. I don’t care if it doesn’t harm me, it harms someone and we don’t need to do it. The Nazis weren’t harming Americans. Do you think we were wrong to step in and tell them to stop killing Jews in Europe?
There is no reason you have to tell others how they should live their lives if they don’t ask you for your opinion.
You continue to make arguments that slavers would have made against abolitionists
Okay… you’re clearly vapor-locked on that and have no intention to stop using false equivalence, so like the others, you’re getting tagged with “Blowhard Vegan” and getting blocked for a time.
I keep coming back to slavery because you keep making arguments in defense of it. I could talk about rape or murder or robbery or neglect or physical abuse or genocide or any number of obviously evil things instead, and I could do that because I’m ideologically consistent, unlike you. It’s not a false equivalence, because I’ve never once equated any of these subjects. All I’ve talked about is what your underlying logic leads to.
“You’re not the one being harmed” is not a justification for harming something, it’s an attempt to shut someone up when they’re pointing out that you’re harming something.
Do you really not see the problems with this? This discussion may be about eating meat, but you just made a general statement about when it is and isn’t okay to tell people that what they’re doing is wrong.
This is a literal defense of slavery. I’m not even misinterpreting it or taking it to a logical conclusion like that other comment I left, you are straight up saying that abolitionists are wrong when they tell slave owners that they shouldn’t own slaves if slavery is legal in their region.
Edit: y’all can read through this thread if you like, but we literally got nowhere except for this guy blocking me. Either he cannot understand the problems with his underlying logic, or he is ideologically consistent and thinks that the Holocaust was totally fine because it was legal and it didn’t hurt him.
Yeah… you’re definitely misinterpreting it. And again, like everyone’s else- arguing false equivalency.
This is not at all like defending slavery. This is telling people to butt-out of the dietary decisions that have nothing to do with you.
If you want an argument that IS similar…
What telling others what they should and shouldn’t eat is not u like those that presume it’s their responsibly to tell other who they can and cannot love.
Someone eating cheeseburgers has absolutely no impact on your life and doesn’t hurt you in the least bit. Just like who someone decides to love has no impact on anyone else.
If you don’t like someone’s diet, that’s a YOU problem. And this goes for both sides of the argument. Though I don’t see any meat-eaters whining about this.
Imagine that.
You have to understand that the logic you are using here can be used to justify a bunch of awful things. The government banning gay marriage also has absolutely no impact on my life and doesn’t hurt me the least bit, but I can still argue for the rights and wellbeing of people and animals who aren’t like me.
This is word salad, but I think what you’re getting at is that telling other people what they should and shouldn’t eat is like telling gay people that they shouldn’t be gay. That’s not a similar argument, because being gay doesn’t hurt anything and eating meat does.
Okay, then the logic you’re used here can be used to justify anti-LGBTQ bigotry. Because you are claiming that because of YOUR belief, others who don’t share it, have to change their behavior or they’re morally wrong.
Good job.
Nope. I’m against meat production because it harms things and we don’t need to do it. Being gay doesn’t harm anything. My underlying logic does not support bigotry. My underlying logic does support things like fighting for LGBT rights and abolitionism.
You need to try harder.
Someone else eating meat harms you just as much as some else being gay harms fundamentalist Christians- which is, or should be zero.
There is no harm to you if I eat a steak. None.
And like my comparison, it’s just as much your business if someone eats a steak as it would be a fundamentalist Christian’s business who other people love.
There is no reason you have to tell others how they should live their lives if they don’t ask you for your opinion.
Lastly, I didn’t say eating animals is similar to bigotry. That would be an easily extinguished straw man. It’s not the purpose, it’s the justification of telling others what to do based on YOUR belief.
So no… Your logic doesn’t support bigotry. But it does support oppression. And righteous oppression is your commonality with bigots.
I’ve already gone over this with you. Someone eating meat doesn’t harm me just like my government banning gay marriage doesn’t harm me just like my government legalizing slavery doesn’t harm me. I don’t care if it doesn’t harm me, it harms someone and we don’t need to do it. The Nazis weren’t harming Americans. Do you think we were wrong to step in and tell them to stop killing Jews in Europe?
You continue to make arguments that slavers would have made against abolitionists
So now we’re back to slavers?
lol…
Okay… you’re clearly vapor-locked on that and have no intention to stop using false equivalence, so like the others, you’re getting tagged with “Blowhard Vegan” and getting blocked for a time.
Have a nice afternoon.
I keep coming back to slavery because you keep making arguments in defense of it. I could talk about rape or murder or robbery or neglect or physical abuse or genocide or any number of obviously evil things instead, and I could do that because I’m ideologically consistent, unlike you. It’s not a false equivalence, because I’ve never once equated any of these subjects. All I’ve talked about is what your underlying logic leads to.
“You’re not the one being harmed” is not a justification for harming something, it’s an attempt to shut someone up when they’re pointing out that you’re harming something.