• FooBarrington@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 days ago

    That’s sad, what an illogical approach to an ethical dilemma.

    “Oh well, people died before laws were introduced, may as well go on a killing spree” - right? Nothing else matters?

    • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      “Oh well, people died before laws were introduced, may as well go on a killing spree”

      this is a strawman. my argument is more like “you may object to killing animals for food, but your method is not an effective way to stop it”

      • FooBarrington@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Which is an incredibly stupid point, because it presupposes that reducing needless deaths only has value if absolutely every single death is prevented. This, of course, is completely illogical - even one death that was prevented has value.

        But we don’t care about silly things like “logic” here, right?

        Not to mention that your original point was that you bear no responsibility for the deaths of animals you consume, but who cares as long as you can keep giving stupid arguments ¯\_(ツ)_/¯