RE: Any Vegetarians/Vegans here?
January 21, 2014 at 12:01 pm
(This post was last modified: January 21, 2014 at 12:12 pm by Anomalocaris.)
(January 21, 2014 at 11:32 am)jg2014 Wrote: Yep, more than 8. Anyway,
Pre-school and kindergarden does not count.
(January 21, 2014 at 11:32 am)jg2014 Wrote: I am just not inclined to give you my CV on the internet. Either argue against the points I have raised, or concede the point. Don't just try to make ad hominem attacks, it just makes you look like a moron
It is always easier to throw out bullshit than to refute them in detail. It is the contingent upon those who makes the argument to prove the argument, not those who question the argument to refute it in detail.
(January 21, 2014 at 11:32 am)jg2014 Wrote: 1. Appeals to authority ... check
And you don't?
In fact it is perfectly valid if the authority is indeed authoritative. Let's see you show validate Fermat's theorem without either appeal to, or plagarizing from, authority. The latter amount to the same thing as former because it is unlikely you would understand what you plagarize.
(January 21, 2014 at 11:32 am)jg2014 Wrote: 2. Appeals to nature ... Check
When insufficient evidence exists to make a thorough and fundamental analysis of whether something is necessary, then examining suggestive precedent and analogues is one workable and better alternative to paralysis.
(January 21, 2014 at 11:32 am)jg2014 Wrote: 3. Appeals to the people... Yep
And you don't? In fact not only do you do it, you do it duplicitiously.
(January 21, 2014 at 11:32 am)jg2014 Wrote: 4. Ad hominem... a couple of times
When you present no argument to attack, yet make yourself so annoying, you get what you deserve.
(January 21, 2014 at 11:32 am)jg2014 Wrote: Need I spell out the obvious?
Let's see, you won't change your mind, and your won't change the topic. I think it is pretty obvious what you are.
(January 21, 2014 at 11:32 am)jg2014 Wrote: Address the argument!
You have no argument. All you do is throw assertions followed by the a wallow in the muddy conceit of your own self-righteousness.
(January 21, 2014 at 11:32 am)jg2014 Wrote: 1. Animals are conscious and can suffer
2. Causing suffering is wrong
3. Eating meat causes animals to suffer
Therefore, eating meat is wrong. All we have had so far is a poor attempt to argue that animals are not conscious and an appeal to nature. Both of which I have shown to be nonsense. Try harder
1. Not necessarily true.
2. Mere assertion (so is that a sordid attempt to appeal to yourself as authority?)
3. Not necessarily true
Therefore, fuck off.