No, I see your point, questioning my thought process in response to the hypocrisy of meat eaters that cry when and animal is harmed just blows my mind. lol
Jessy Jess's Cat Critically Injured and Her House Broken Into
- Thread starter Vulcan
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,374
- Reaction score
- 52
It's a terrible point. Because there's animal cruelty more animal cruelty is okay. Got it. Very stupid.
I never meant to suggest kicking the cat was okay, only drawing attention to something much worse that occurs 24/7. And you are questioning my thought process? lol Understand, kicking a cat is senseless and unnecessary, and so it the meat industry. Agree? If so, we can end this here.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,374
- Reaction score
- 52
I'm not a fan of the meat industry. You are making your point poorly. Just say that you don't like big Ag or meat in general, if that's how you feel AND it is awful that someone would do something like this to any sentient being. And leave it at that, FFS.
There is a problem here, you aren't even considering the post I was quoting. You were slighted by my comment and it's obvious now.
In response to this I say "better be ready to kill all the meat eaters in America," I don't see how my logic fails there. Animals are hurt unnecessarily by the hands of humans 24/7 for profit, so if he has a problem with senseless violence towards animals, he would have no problem killing those that work in the industry and those that finance it.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,374
- Reaction score
- 52
You're way over-intellectualizing it, I don't know what you think you accomplish, because the way you're trying to make your point will literally sway zero people to what you're trying to argue (if you actually care about animals) and I don't follow your first point.
Let me help you out a little here, though, as well. There is a difference between something that everyone knows is cruel and socially unacceptable and people participating in something that one hopes society will evolve from. Your failure to distinguish between things that are within and without societal norms reveals very limiting black and white thinking. Both are behaviors you seem to wish to discourage. Your failure to understand the different ways one goes about discouraging these materially different behaviors is counterproductive. Do you actually care about animals?
Let me help you out a little here, though, as well. There is a difference between something that everyone knows is cruel and socially unacceptable and people participating in something that one hopes society will evolve from. Your failure to distinguish between things that are within and without societal norms reveals very limiting black and white thinking. Both are behaviors you seem to wish to discourage. Your failure to understand the different ways one goes about discouraging these materially different behaviors is counterproductive. Do you actually care about animals?
Forgot to quote me.
John Doe: Wants to kill anyone that would harm animals
John Doe: Two people are presented in front of John Doe, someone that harms animals 24/7 for profit and someone that kicks an animal for the hell of it.
The logical conclusion here is that John Doe must kill both people, they are both harming animals in a senseless fashion. Lets just end this here, my response to the OP was sound, you are just slighted.
Glad we are off that, best route was to take shots at my word choice. I just use it as slang for a replacement of "triggered" which is kind of cringe, imo. Basically just improper use of this definition: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/learner-english/slighted
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2006
- Messages
- 1,374
- Reaction score
- 52
This is boring, I hope you are young and just need time to learn how to advance your points more compellingly.
Of course, you can lay off the ad hominems in the future.
