• PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    You don’t eat dogs and cats, other cultures absolutely do and billions of people are 100% ok with eating animals. Don’t be a cultural imperialist.

      • abraxas@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I hate to be “that guy”, but I feel like none of your references are really properly rebutting his valid point. “We don’t eat cats and dogs” is a common anti-balanced-diet dogwhistle that tries to touch on heartstrings instead of logic or even ethical behavior. You might not have meant it that way, but he was justified in pointing out the cultural bias of it.

        And “cultural imperialism” is different from “literal imperialism”, but that also means your rebuttal was a gishgallop, changing the topic. I’m ASSUMING you didn’t mean to secretly change the topic to prevent losing on that previous point, but that’s what the reply looks like anyway.

        • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The original point they made talking about how people commonly hold contradictory beliefs regarding dogs and cats compared to other animals is pointing out cultural bias. It is an appeal for logical consistency in ethical beliefs

          • abraxas@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Actually, their original point was “We don’t eat cats and dogs”. You seem to be drawing a lot of foundation they did not lay. We cannot presume that foundation, or its solidity, because they are controversial and MIGHT have been rebuttable.

            Ultimately, it was a meme-worthy throw out of one sentence trying to pull at heartstrings. If he intended more or something defensible, he failed to prove it.

            At this point, I’m pretty sure you’re a vegan from your replies to me. Even if you were on the right side of ethics by some agreeable system, that doesn’t make his original point more than it actually was. You can argue for the right thing with a bad or lacking argument, and you can (and should) be called on that.

            • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Look at the words that immediately follow. “We don’t eat cats or dogs, so why is it okay to eat other animals” is a statement looking at contradictions. I don’t see much point in continuing this conversation if we’re going to be arguing over semantics/sentence meaning here. I don’t think anyone gets much out of that. Also because for some reason, replies are not showing up in my inbox so I can’t see your responses easily anyway (I think lemmy.ml is having some issues again)

              • abraxas@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Bingo, heartstrings of an unsubstantiated argument. Thank you for quoting him.

                is a statement looking at contradictions

                No, it’s a statement accusing contradictions without substantiating them. It’s no different than if I said “we don’t eat cats and dogs, so why is it ok to eat other things in nature like tomatoes?” Except that is OBVIOUSLY the nonsense to who anyone who wants to not die of starvation where his statement merely secretly is. Creating a special category/line of “the animal kingdom” in a flippant unfounded way creates a false likeness between cats&dogs and pork. Add lobsters and other insect-like animals, then add insects, then add bacteria, and then plants. Every one of those steps can be justified if no additional argument is provided. It’s all about making someone feel bad for a poor cute fluffy puppy, even if not intended that way. There is a difference between emotions and ethics.

                I don’t see much point in continuing this conversation if we’re going to be arguing over semantics/sentence meaning here

                With all due respect, that’s on you. I’m not sure if you followed me from our other discussions or simply found my calling the bad argument what it was. I have very strong opinoins about people, especially zealots, trying to push their pseudoreligious views on others using bad-but-convincing arguments. It’s my thing. It’s not everyone’s thing, especially if they personally support the belief that’s being defended badly.

                (I think lemmy.ml is having some issues again)

                Probably yes :(. Lemmy.ml was not prepared. But it’s home.