Veganism

[Disagreeable]

It's called an analogy. And my key point was made very clear. I even called it my key point. You retort by saying that it doesn't imply some other thing which is completely besides what I clearly stated my key point was.

But it looks like you're just doing your usual trick of completely failing to understand anything that I say.

I have an endearing pet name for you: Little Miss Strawwoman. Since you love to create strawmen out of what I say.

As to why I brought legality up, as far as I remember I didn't. Someone seemed to be using legality as a justification for moral permissibility so I drew an analogy to demonstrate how legality doesn't necessarily justify morality. Try tracking for once.

You know, you could have simply answered the question.  But if acting like a butthurt teenager is your preference, by all means, knock yourself out.

I did answer the question, though.

Misinterpreting my motives now. Your addiction to misinterpretation is on steroids. Nowhere did I act 'butthurt'. Don't flatter yourself. You're not that special.

It seems that you may be the one who is butthurt. Projection on your part. It seems that you're sulking over my so-called butthurtness.

[Angrboda]

I think I'll wait to respond until you stop furiously editing and re-editing your post.

[Disagreeable]

I think I'll wait to respond until you stop furiously editing and re-editing your post.

There you go with the butthurtness and projection again. I edit a lot. I'm not doing it 'furiously'. Projection again on your part methinks.

All you ever seem to do is misinterpret. Could you be doing it on purpose? Or are you just that poor at tracking the conversation?

[Angrboda]

I think I'll wait to respond until you stop furiously editing and re-editing your post.

There you go with the butthurtness and projection again. I edit a lot. I'm not doing it 'furiously'. Projection again on your part methinks.

All you ever seem to do is misinterpret. Could you be doing it on purpose? Or are you just that poor at tracking the conversation?

My comprehension is fine. Maybe you're simply not as clear as you believe yourself to be.

[Disagreeable]

There you go with the butthurtness and projection again. I edit a lot. I'm not doing it 'furiously'. Projection again on your part methinks.

All you ever seem to do is misinterpret. Could you be doing it on purpose? Or are you just that poor at tracking the conversation?

My comprehension is fine.  Maybe you're simply not as clear as you believe yourself to be.

Nah. Either your tracking is shit or you're disingenuous.

But anyway.

[Angrboda]

Nope. The point of the slavery analogy is just because something is legal doesn't make it moral and maybe non-veganism will be made illegal, just like owning slaves eventually was, someday. Key point is that the fact that consuming animal products is legal doesn't mean that it's moral.

And the fact that slavery is now illegal doesn't mean it was or is immoral.  Why are you dragging legality into this?

It's called an analogy. And my key point was made very clear. I even called it my key point. You retort by saying that it doesn't imply some other thing which is completely besides what I clearly stated my key point was.

It's called expanding the conversation. My point was that your analogy assumes that legality and morality are not synonymous; if they are synonymous, your response is a non sequitur. I recognize that I wasn't particularly clear but I was interested in having you make explicit that this was an assumption you were making, without which, your point does not hold. Now that I've clarified my point, would you address the issue of your assumption by explaining why you feel it is justified?

[Disagreeable]

It's called expanding the conversation.  My point was that your analogy assumes that legality and morality are not synonymous

Yes, my point was that they're not synonymous. The analogy was that if slavery being legal isn't a moral justification for slavery then for the same reason eating animal products being legal isn't a moral justification for animal products.

Yes, if they're synonymous then the analogy isn't useful. But who is claiming that they're synonymous?

I think that my assumption is justified because slavery was immoral prior to it being illegal. So they're not synonymous. If you don't accept that assumption then I don't know how I'm supposed to convince you. Do you think that slavery was moral back when it was legal? Or are you agnostic on the issue?

I could say that slavery caused suffering prior to it being illegal and that it was morally bad, despite being legal, for that reason. But then you can just ask me to justify that.

I'd rather just say that I take it that it's a platitude that slavery was immoral prior to it being illegal. What do you believe?

[The Grand Nudger]

I can see how a thing might be objectively immoral and morally permissible. Alot of things, actually. I could easily believe that eating meat is one of those things.

[Disagreeable]

I can see how a thing might be objectively immoral and morally permissible.  Alot of things, actually.  I could easily believe that eating meat is one of those things.

I guess it is possible to define the terms in such a way so that something can be immoral but permissible.

The distinction between moral obligations and moral virtues might be relevant.

[Angrboda]

I think that my assumption is justified because slavery was immoral prior to it being illegal. So they're not synonymous.

Whether slavery was immoral prior to it being illegal seems to rely upon the same assumption that morality and legality are not synonymous, otherwise this is just a bare assertion.

This is simply doubling down rather than providing a reason for the assumption.